A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 8.01-261, 19.2-249.2, 24.2-955, 24.2-955.1, 24.2-955.3, and 24.2-960 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 9.5 of Title 24.2 an article numbered 7, consisting of a section numbered 24.2-961, relating to elections; political campaign advertisements; synthetic media; penalty.
HB868 would create a new election-law restriction aimed at political campaign and electioneering communications that use synthetic media, often described as manipulated or AI-generated audio or images. The bill defines “synthetic media” broadly to include intentionally altered recordings and artificially generated images or audio that could mislead a reasonable person about whether the depicted speech or event actually occurred. It then makes it unlawful for a political committee or other person to sponsor an electioneering communication containing synthetic media unless the communication includes a specific disclosure stating that the message has been altered or artificially generated and may present conduct or speech that did not occur.
The bill also sets formatting and timing rules for the disclosure, including requirements for conspicuous display, minimum font size for electronic print media, and placement at the beginning of audio or video communications, with a repeat disclosure at the end for longer pieces. It creates a private right of action for registered voters to seek injunctions and potentially recover attorney’s fees, while exempting satire and parody. In addition, media outlets, internet service providers, and online platforms are shielded from liability for carrying noncompliant communications, and media outlets must verify and retain proof of identity from the person submitting the ad.
Beyond the new synthetic-media article, HB868 amends existing election-disclosure and venue provisions. It expands venue rules so enforcement actions involving the new synthetic-media section can be brought in the locality where venue would be proper under the criminal venue statute, and it adds violations of § 24.2-961 to the venue statute for computer and related crimes. The bill also updates definitions and penalty provisions in Virginia’s campaign-disclosure laws to incorporate the new article and to make violations subject to civil penalties of up to $25,000 and, for willful violations, a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The overall sentiment appears cautious but not overtly hostile, as the bill was referred to the Privileges and Elections Committee and later continued to the next session by voice vote rather than advancing to final passage. That suggests the proposal drew enough interest to remain under consideration, but not enough consensus for immediate approval. Because there were no recorded floor votes or committee transcript excerpts provided, the available record does not show detailed public debate, but the structure of the bill indicates a policy concern about deceptive political deepfakes and election misinformation.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly “synthetic media” is defined, whether the disclosure requirements could burden political speech, and how the bill’s enforcement mechanism might affect campaigns, media outlets, and online platforms. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency and voter protection, while critics may worry about First Amendment implications, the risk of overbreadth, and the practical difficulty of distinguishing prohibited synthetic media from satire, parody, or ordinary editing.
HB868 would add a new section to Virginia’s election code regulating electioneering communications that contain synthetic media and would amend related venue, disclosure, and penalty statutes to support enforcement. It would expose sponsors of covered communications to civil penalties and misdemeanor liability for willful violations, authorize injunctions sought by voters, and require identity verification by media outlets accepting such ads. The bill would also extend venue rules to allow enforcement actions to be brought in localities tied to the conduct, the offender, or the affected computer systems, and it would incorporate the new offense into the venue statute for computer and related crimes.
The available legislative history suggests mixed or cautious sentiment. The bill was referred to the Privileges and Elections Committee and then continued to the next session by voice vote, indicating it did not face outright rejection but also did not secure enough support to move forward immediately. With no recorded vote breakdown or transcript excerpts, the record does not show strong public opposition or endorsement, but the continuation implies unresolved concerns or a desire for further review of the synthetic-media restrictions.
Likely areas of contention include the breadth of the synthetic-media definition, the scope of the disclosure mandate, and the bill’s enforcement tools. Campaigns and free-speech advocates may object that the law could chill political expression or be difficult to apply consistently, especially for edited content, memes, or AI-generated material. Media outlets and online platforms may also be concerned about compliance burdens, while supporters are likely to argue that the bill is necessary to prevent deceptive deepfakes and protect voters from manipulated election content. The satire-and-parody exemption appears designed to address some of those concerns, but it may not eliminate disputes over borderline content.