Federal law targets deepfake intimate images with civil and criminal penalties

What it does

This bill creates civil and criminal penalties for non-consensual disclosure of deepfake intimate images—sexually explicit digital depictions of real people created or altered without consent. Victims can sue for damages up to $150,000, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees; the bill also criminalizes such disclosure with up to 2 years imprisonment (10 years if the deepfake could affect government proceedings or incite violence). Platforms are shielded from liability for good-faith removal efforts.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a civil right of action and criminal offense targeting non-consensual intimate image abuse. It is functionally a victim-protection statute, not a regulatory or commercial measure.

What the text implies

• The bill's definition of 'intimate digital depiction' requires digital manipulation or creation—it does not cover non-consensual disclosure of authentic intimate images (revenge porn), which remains governed by state law. This creates a gap: deepfakes are federally protected, but authentic intimate images shared without consent may not be.
• The 'matter of legitimate public concern' exception is broad and undefined. Courts will need to develop case law on whether disclosure of a public figure's deepfake intimate image qualifies as protected speech, potentially creating litigation risk for victims.
• The $150,000 liquidated damages floor may be insufficient deterrent for high-volume deepfake creators operating internationally or anonymously, who may face minimal enforcement risk.
• Platform liability shield applies only to 'good faith' moderation—platforms that knowingly host or profit from deepfake content remain potentially liable, but the standard for 'knowing' complicity is not defined.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates a direct legal remedy and criminal deterrent against a form of sexual abuse that causes documented psychological and reputational harm to victims, with no offsetting cost to ordinary citizens. The platform liability shield is narrow and applies only to good-faith moderation, not to negligence or complicity.

Named in the bill

House Committee on the Judiciary, Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, Title 18 USC Chapter 110, Interactive computer service providers

Where it stands

12 cosponsors: 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans.

• Mar 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $10,530,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 108 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Joseph Morelle, the sponsor, reported $934,875 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Google Client Services LLC — $6,920,000 on 2 filings
• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.