SOUL Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The SOUL Act creates a comprehensive federal right of publicity for digital identity, aiming to protect individuals from unauthorized AI-generated replicas and misuse of personal traits, while navigating existing free speech and copyright frameworks.
What it actually does
This bill, the SOUL Act of 2026, amends title 17 of the U.S. Code to establish a new federal right for U.S. citizens over their "unique likeness," which is broadly defined to include name, image, voice, biometric identifiers, genetic markers, and digital replicas (like deepfakes). It grants individuals exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, or create derivative works based on their likeness, lasting for life plus 50 years. The bill provides civil remedies for unauthorized use, including injunctive relief, takedown orders, and statutory damages, and outlines conditions for platform liability with a safe harbor similar to the DMCA. It also preempts state laws providing equivalent rights to ensure national uniformity.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a necessary and timely response to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and digital replication technologies, which pose significant threats to individual autonomy, privacy, and economic rights. They contend that existing state laws are a patchwork and insufficient to protect U.S. citizens from the unauthorized creation and commercial exploitation of their digital identities, voices, and images. Establishing a clear federal standard with robust civil remedies empowers individuals to control their own likeness in an increasingly digital world.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill's broad definition of "unique likeness" and its extensive exclusive rights could stifle free speech, artistic expression, and innovation, particularly in areas like parody, satire, news reporting, and the development of generative AI. They may argue that the presumption of harm and high statutory damages could lead to excessive litigation and create a chilling effect on creators and platforms. Concerns could also be raised about potential conflicts with existing intellectual property laws and the practical challenges of enforcing such broad rights globally.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its primary intent and mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 1401(1)
Definition of 'Individual's Unique Likeness'
This provision broadly defines what constitutes an 'individual's unique likeness,' encompassing a wide range of personal traits. These include full legal names, nicknames, stage names, images (photos, videos, digital representations), physical appearance, body shape, movements, habits, style, natural and AI-generated voices, biometric identifiers (facial geometry, iris patterns, gait, fingerprints) when used commercially, and genetic markers for commercial identity misuse. It explicitly includes avatars, deepfakes, and digital replicas derived from these elements, stating the term should adapt to technological advancements.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this expansive definition is crucial for future-proofing the law against rapidly evolving digital technologies, particularly generative AI. They contend that a narrow definition would quickly become obsolete, leaving individuals vulnerable to new forms of digital exploitation. By including elements like genetic markers and AI-generated reproductions, the bill aims to provide comprehensive protection for personal identity in the digital age.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that the definition is overly broad and vague, potentially encompassing elements traditionally considered public domain or fair use, such as general physical appearance or style. They may contend that including genetic markers, even with exemptions, raises privacy concerns and could lead to unintended restrictions on scientific research or data analysis. The adaptive nature of the definition could also create legal uncertainty for creators and innovators.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive individual protection against technological advancements with concerns about overreach, potential chilling effects on creative expression, and legal clarity for emerging technologies.
Sec. 1402
Exclusive Rights, Duration, and Scope of Ownership
This section grants the owner (the U.S. citizen or their authorized heir/licensee) exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, perform, or create derivative works based on their unique likeness, specifically prohibiting unauthorized digital replicas. These rights endure for the life of the individual plus 50 years after death, regardless of prior commercial exploitation. The rights apply to U.S. citizens and activities affecting interstate commerce, are inalienable except by voluntary waiver or license, and vest automatically without registration.
Sec. 1403
Exceptions and Limitations to Rights
This section outlines specific exemptions where the granted rights do not apply. These include non-commercial uses qualifying as fair use under existing copyright law (e.g., parody, satire, criticism, news reporting, scholarly commentary, transformative artistic works, incidental inclusions, public domain elements). It also exempts government activities like law enforcement or national security, and activities protected by the First Amendment, consistent with judicial precedents. The bill explicitly states it has no retroactive application, meaning uses authorized before its effective date are unaffected.
Sec. 1404
Civil Remedies and Platform Liability
This section details the enforcement mechanisms, allowing owners to bring civil actions in Federal district court. Available remedies include injunctive relief, takedown orders for unauthorized content, actual damages, or statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per violation, with up to $150,000 for willful violations. Importantly, no proof of economic or reputational harm is required, as harm is presumed. Platforms are liable if they fail to remove unauthorized content after receiving a valid takedown notice, but they may qualify for safe harbor protection if they act in good faith, consistent with Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The bill explicitly states it provides only civil, not criminal, penalties.
Sec. 1405(a)
Federal Preemption of State Laws
This provision states that the new federal chapter preempts any State law that provides equivalent rights or remedies for unique likeness. The stated purpose is to ensure uniformity across the United States regarding these rights.
The definition of 'individual's unique likeness' includes 'Other related traits, including avatars, deepfakes, or digital replicas derived from the elements described in subparagraphs (A) through (F), encompassing artificial intelligence-generated identity data. The term 'unique likeness' shall be construed broadly to adapt to technological advancements.'
Sec. 1401(1)(G)
Why it matters:While definitions are a standard place for such clauses, its placement at the end of a detailed list and its forward-looking nature make it a powerful, yet easily missed, element. It's likely intended to provide flexibility without drawing immediate attention to its potentially vast implications.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is essential for the bill's longevity and effectiveness, ensuring it remains relevant as technology evolves. It prevents the law from becoming quickly outdated by new forms of digital replication and AI-generated content, providing continuous protection for individuals.
Case against: Critics might argue that this broad, adaptive language creates significant legal uncertainty. It grants future courts wide discretion to expand the scope of protected likeness, potentially leading to unforeseen restrictions on creative works, AI development, and public discourse without explicit legislative guidance.
Estimated impact: This clause has a potentially enormous impact on the future application and interpretation of the SOUL Act, allowing its scope to expand to cover technologies not yet conceived, thereby affecting all future digital content creation and AI development.
A platform is liable if it fails to remove unauthorized content after receiving a valid takedown notice, but may qualify for safe harbor protection if it acts in good faith, consistent with section 512 of this title (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
Sec. 1404(b)
Why it matters:Referencing existing legal frameworks like the DMCA is standard legislative practice for efficiency. However, for a new type of right (likeness vs. copyright), applying an existing safe harbor mechanism has significant, nuanced implications that are not immediately apparent without deep legal knowledge. It's buried in the sense that its full impact requires external legal context.
Case for: Proponents would argue that leveraging the DMCA safe harbor framework provides a familiar and established mechanism for platforms to manage user-generated content, promoting efficient removal of infringing material while protecting platforms from undue liability. It offers a balanced approach that has been tested in copyright law.
Case against: Critics might argue that applying a copyright-specific safe harbor to likeness rights is an imperfect fit, as the nature of the protected content and potential infringements differs. They may contend that the DMCA's notice-and-takedown process, while effective for copyright, might not adequately address the complexities of deepfakes or the broad definition of 'unique likeness,' potentially leading to over-censorship or insufficient protection.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly shapes the operational responsibilities and legal risks for all interactive computer services that host user-generated content, influencing their content moderation policies and their exposure to litigation.