QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

New federal law lets citizens sue over deepfakes—but fair-use boundaries are dangerously unclear.

H.R. 8323 — SOUL Act of 2026 · Filed by Andy Biggs (R-AZ) · Introduced Apr 16, 2026 · Referred to committee

65%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
35/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
High concernDigital Identity Rights & Litigation…

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill creates a new federal property right called 'Sovereign Ownership of Unique Likeness' (SOUL), granting every U.S. citizen exclusive ownership over their name, image, voice, biometric data, and digital replicas—including AI-generated deepfakes. Citizens can sue in federal court for statutory damages ($750–$30,000 per violation, up to $150,000 for willful violations) without proving actual harm, and platforms must remove infringing content or face liability. The right lasts for life plus 50 years and preempts all state laws on the subject.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a new federal property right in personal likeness coupled with a private right of action and statutory damages regime. While framed as identity protection, it functions primarily as a litigation and enforcement tool, with significant implications for speech and platform liability.

What the text implies

  • The definition of 'unique likeness' includes 'genetic markers' and 'DNA sequences' for 'commercial applications'—potentially capturing ancestry DNA tests, genealogy platforms, and biotech research in ways not clearly exempted by the GINA carve-out, which applies only to 'medical or research purposes.'
  • Presumed damages (no proof of economic or reputational harm required) combined with statutory damages of $750–$30,000 per violation may incentivize mass litigation against platforms, news outlets, and creators for borderline fair-use cases (parody, satire, commentary), shifting litigation risk to speakers rather than rights-holders.

The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

litigation firms (statutory damages regime incentivizes claims); rights-management platforms and licensing intermediaries; AI companies offering identity-protection or takedown services

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record