HR-3562-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend existing federal law to let people sue in federal court over "intimate digital forgeries" — AI-generated or digitally altered sexual images that falsely depict them but look real. It would allow victims to recover liquidated damages of $150,000 (or $250,000 if tied to assault, stalking, or harassment), actual damages including the defendant's profits, punitive damages, and injunctions requiring deletion of the images, with a 10-year statute of limitations and privacy protections like pseudonym use in court filings.
Who benefits
Individuals depicted in non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, particularly women and public figures who are disproportionately targeted; victims' attorneys who could recover fees; and children or incapacitated individuals whose guardians could sue on their behalf. State and tribal governments retain authority to enact even stronger protections.
Who is hurt
Individuals accused of producing, possessing with intent to disclose, or distributing such forgeries would face substantial financial liability ($150,000-$250,000 in liquidated damages plus punitive damages and disgorgement of profits); AI app developers and platforms that host user-generated content could face increased litigation exposure and compliance costs; and defendants relying on satire, art, or parody defenses may face uncertainty about how courts will apply the "indistinguishable from authentic" standard.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that deepfake technology has made it trivially easy to create realistic non-consensual sexual images of real people, causing documented harms including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and withdrawal from public life, and that existing law inadequately addresses purely synthetic or AI-manipulated content since it was written for authentic intimate images. They contend the bill closes this gap by giving victims a direct federal civil remedy with meaningful damages, while preserving stronger state and tribal protections and providing courts tools like pseudonymous filing to protect victims from further exposure during litigation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad definition of "intimate digital forgery" and its liquidated damages of up to $250,000 could sweep in protected creative expression, satire, or commentary, and that the "indistinguishable from a reasonable person" standard is vague enough to invite costly litigation over borderline content. They contend that shifting the burden to defendants to prove deductible expenses and non-infringing profit sources, combined with punitive damages, creates a legal regime that risks chilling legitimate speech and technological innovation even when producers lack clear malicious intent.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates First Amendment limits on regulating expressive content, since courts applying strict or intermediate scrutiny to speech restrictions have distinguished true threats and obscenity from protected satire and artistic expression, though no landmark case squarely governs AI-generated sexual deepfakes; it also touches Fifth Amendment due process concerns given the shifted burden of proof on damages.
Checks and balances
Congress creates a new private federal civil cause of action enforced through the federal judiciary rather than expanding executive or agency power, with courts retaining discretion over injunctive relief, damages calculations, and privacy protections.
Historical precedent
The 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act already created a federal civil cause of action for disclosure of authentic non-consensual intimate images, which this bill amends and extends to cover AI-generated forgeries.