HR-3562-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would expand an existing federal civil law to cover AI-generated or digitally manipulated intimate images (commonly called "deepfakes") created or shared without a person's consent. It would allow victims to sue anyone who produces, discloses, or solicits such images without consent, and would provide for liquidated damages of $150,000–$250,000, actual damages, attorney fees, punitive damages, and court injunctions ordering deletion or removal. The bill would also allow plaintiffs to use pseudonyms to protect their privacy during litigation and sets a 10-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery or the victim's 18th birthday.
Who benefits
Victims of non-consensual AI-generated intimate imagery, who are disproportionately women and girls. Minors who are targeted, whose guardians may bring suit on their behalf. Victims of stalking, harassment, sexual assault, and extortion where such images are used as a tool. Privacy-focused advocacy organizations. Attorneys who specialize in digital harm litigation. Existing state-law victims who gain a federal forum with stronger remedies. Victims who previously could not identify perpetrators but later discover them within the 10-year window.
Who is hurt
Defendants found liable, including individuals who may have shared content without fully understanding its legal status. Platforms and websites that host user-generated content, who may face indirect pressure to more aggressively moderate content to avoid facilitating actionable conduct. AI tool developers whose products could be used to create covered content. Researchers, artists, and satirists who use AI image manipulation, who may face legal uncertainty about where the line falls. Defendants in states with existing laws who could face parallel state and federal liability for the same conduct.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that AI image-generation technology has made non-consensual intimate imagery cheap, fast, and nearly impossible to distinguish from authentic photographs, causing severe and documented psychological harm — including depression, social withdrawal, and suicidal ideation — to victims who have no effective existing remedy. They contend that the bill's tiered damages structure ($150,000 base, $250,000 when linked to assault or stalking) reflects the severity of harm, and that the 10-year discovery-based statute of limitations is necessary because victims often cannot identify perpetrators immediately. The bill's privacy protections, including pseudonym use and sealed filings, address a key barrier that deters victims from coming forward.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad definition of "intimate digital forgery" — covering any AI-altered image that a "reasonable person" cannot distinguish from an authentic one — could sweep in satire, artistic expression, and political commentary, raising First Amendment concerns that the bill does not address. They contend that the $150,000–$250,000 liquidated damages floor, applied without requiring proof of actual harm, may be disproportionate in cases involving minimal distribution or ambiguous intent, and that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines framework and due process proportionality principles could be implicated. Critics also argue that the bill's 10-year statute of limitations is unusually long and could expose defendants to stale claims where evidence has degraded.