Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act
HB1941, titled the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act, would create both civil and criminal remedies for the nonconsensual disclosure of “intimate digital depictions.” The bill defines those depictions as realistic, digitally created or altered images showing nudity, sexual fluids, or sexually explicit conduct involving an identifiable person. It adds a new private right of action under the Violence Against Women Act framework, allowing victims to sue in federal court for damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief, and it also permits certain representatives to sue on behalf of minors, incapacitated, or deceased individuals.
The bill also amends Title 18 to create a new federal offense for disclosing or threatening to disclose such depictions in interstate or foreign commerce when done to harass, threaten, or cause harm, or with knowledge or reckless disregard that harm will result. Penalties include up to two years’ imprisonment, or up to ten years in aggravated cases involving interference with government proceedings or facilitation of violence. The bill includes exceptions for good-faith law enforcement activity, legal proceedings, matters of legitimate public concern, and disclosures reasonably intended to assist the depicted person, while also limiting liability for interactive computer service providers that take good-faith steps to restrict access to such content.
If enacted, the bill would expand federal law by adding a new cause of action and a new criminal offense targeting nonconsensual deepfake sexual imagery. It would amend the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 and Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, creating new statutory protections for victims and new compliance considerations for online platforms, publishers, and individuals who create, share, or threaten to share manipulated intimate images. The measure would also establish federal standards for consent, damages, anonymity, and platform liability protections.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-protection and anti-abuse bill with a generally supportive policy posture. Its structure suggests an effort to address harms from AI-generated or digitally manipulated sexual imagery while preserving exceptions for law enforcement, public interest, and legitimate assistance. No formal vote history or transcript is available in the provided materials to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of the definitions, the balance between privacy protection and free speech, and the breadth of the public-interest exception. The bill’s criminal penalties and federal civil remedy may raise concerns about overbreadth, proof of intent or recklessness, and how to distinguish harmful deepfakes from protected expression, journalism, satire, or lawful adult content. Platform liability limits and the treatment of public figures are also likely areas of debate, especially around moderation obligations and whether the exceptions are sufficiently clear.