Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends Section 227(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 to explicitly cover artificial or prerecorded voice systems created through generative artificial intelligence (genAI), including voice cloning. It directs that such systems be subject to technical and procedural standards under the existing statutory framework (placing them within the scope of robocall/prerecorded-voice regulation) and authorizes the Commission to treat subsequent technologies similarly.
Liberal emphasizes consumer protection and stronger safeguards
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill proposes a substantive change by amending 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3) to explicitly include generative AI/voice cloning within the statute's scope, but the provided text is a narrowly phrased insertion without substantive standards, procedural prescriptions, funding, or enforcement detail.
This bill amends Section 227(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 to explicitly cover artificial or prerecorded voice systems created through generative artificial intelligence (genAI), including voice cloning.
It directs that such systems be subject to technical and procedural standards under the existing statutory framework (placing them within the scope of robocall/prerecorded-voice regulation) and authorizes the Commission to treat subsequent technologies similarly.
Modest-to-strong procedural fit and limited fiscal impact improve prospects, but legal questions and competing priorities reduce certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill proposes a substantive change by amending 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3) to explicitly include generative AI/voice cloning within the statute's scope, but the provided text is a narrowly phrased insertion without substantive standards, procedural prescriptions, funding, or enforcement detail.
Liberal emphasizes consumer protection and stronger safeguards
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes consumer protection and stronger safeguards
Likely broadly supportive because the bill treats generative-AI voice cloning as a regulated communication technology, helping protect consumers and vulnerable populations from deception.
Progressives would welcome agency authority to set standards and enforce protections, while wanting stronger privacy, labeling, and enforcement measures added.
Cautiously favorable: it updates an existing legal framework to include genAI voices, which addresses a clear public-safety problem.
Support hinges on how the FCC defines standards, minimizes compliance costs, and preserves legitimate uses and innovation.
Skeptical: while recognizing fraud concerns, conservatives would worry this expands FCC regulatory reach into AI and speech, risking innovation, free expression, and added compliance costs.
They would push for narrower scope and limits on agency discretion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest-to-strong procedural fit and limited fiscal impact improve prospects, but legal questions and competing priorities reduce certainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes consumer protection and stronger safeguards
Modest-to-strong procedural fit and limited fiscal impact improve prospects, but legal questions and competing priorities reduce certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill proposes a substantive change by amending 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3) to explicitly include generative AI/voice cloning within the statute's scope, but the provided text is a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.