Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3059-3060)
This bill amends 15 U.S.C. 6851 to expand existing civil remedies for nonconsensual intimate-image harms to cover "intimate digital forgeries" (deepfakes). It authorizes identifiable individuals to sue producers, possessors, disclosers, or solicitors of such forgeries, allows injunctive relief and deletion orders, and provides liquidated damages ($150,000; $250,000 in aggravating circumstances) or actual damages including defendant profits.
Priority: victim protection versus free-speech and federal overreach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory amendment that defines a legal claim for harms from intimate digital forgeries, but it leaves several practical and systemic implementation details unaddressed.
This bill amends 15 U.S.C. 6851 to expand existing civil remedies for nonconsensual intimate-image harms to cover "intimate digital forgeries" (deepfakes).
It authorizes identifiable individuals to sue producers, possessors, disclosers, or solicitors of such forgeries, allows injunctive relief and deletion orders, and provides liquidated damages ($150,000; $250,000 in aggravating circumstances) or actual damages including defendant profits.
The bill includes privacy protections for plaintiffs, a 10-year statute of limitations from discovery or adulthood, a bar on duplicative recovery in certain federal judgments, and preserves state or tribal laws that are at least as protective.
Subject is sympathetic to victims and narrow in scope, improving prospects; legal challenges and platform pushback create meaningful risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory amendment that defines a legal claim for harms from intimate digital forgeries, but it leaves several practical and systemic implementation details unaddressed.
Priority: victim protection versus free-speech and federal overreach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Priority: victim protection versus free-speech and federal overreach.
Likely supportive; sees the bill as filling a legal gap protecting victims of nonconsensual sexualized deepfakes.
Values the injunctive powers, privacy protections, and strong statutory damages to deter bad actors.
Generally favorable but cautious; appreciates targeted victim remedies and privacy safeguards, while wanting clearer definitions and constitutional guardrails to reduce litigation risk.
Seeks balance between victim relief and free-speech concerns.
Skeptical overall; supports protecting victims of abuse but worries the bill federalizes what states address, risks chilling lawful speech, and creates large damages and broad injunctive power that may be abused.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Subject is sympathetic to victims and narrow in scope, improving prospects; legal challenges and platform pushback create meaningful risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Priority: victim protection versus free-speech and federal overreach.
Subject is sympathetic to victims and narrow in scope, improving prospects; legal challenges and platform pushback create meaningful risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory amendment that defines a legal claim for harms from intimate digital forgeries, but it leaves several practical and systemic…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.