NO FAKES Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
The NO FAKES Act creates a federal right to control one's digital voice and visual likeness, aiming to combat unauthorized AI-generated content while balancing free speech and online service provider responsibilities.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal intellectual property right for an individual's "digital replica," defined as a computer-generated voice or visual likeness where the individual did not perform or their performance was materially altered. It outlines conditions for licensing this right, sets civil liability for unauthorized use, and provides safe harbor provisions for online service providers who implement notice-and-takedown systems, including a "stay-down" requirement for certain platforms using digital fingerprints.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for protecting individuals, especially artists and public figures, from exploitation by unauthorized AI-generated "deepfakes" that can damage reputations, mislead the public, and undermine economic rights. They contend it provides necessary legal recourse and clarifies ownership in the evolving digital landscape, ensuring creators maintain control over their identity and work.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill could stifle innovation in AI and creative expression, potentially leading to over-enforcement or chilling effects on parody, satire, and commentary. Concerns could also be raised about the broad definition of "digital replica," the technological burden of "stay-down" provisions on online services, and the federal preemption of state laws, which might limit states' abilities to address unique local concerns.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the definitions, exceptions, and safe harbor provisions. The estimated reading time is reasonable for an informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Key Definitions for Digital Replicas and Online Services
This section defines critical terms like "digital replica" as a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation readily identifiable as an individual's voice or visual likeness, where the individual did not perform or their performance was materially altered. It also defines "online service" broadly to include websites, online applications, and digital music providers that predominantly host user-uploaded material, and "right holder" to include the individual and those who acquire rights through license or inheritance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear and precise definitions are essential for the enforceability and clarity of the new right, ensuring that the law targets specific harmful uses of AI while avoiding overreach into legitimate creative works.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that some definitions, particularly "digital replica," are still too broad or ambiguous, potentially encompassing legitimate creative works or making it difficult for AI developers to innovate without fear of litigation.
Tradeoffs
Balancing precise legal language to cover emerging technologies and prevent exploitation with flexibility to avoid stifling innovation or legitimate creative uses.
Section 2(b)
Establishment of a Federal Digital Replication Right
This section creates a new federal property right for individuals to authorize the use of their voice or visual likeness in a "digital replica." This right is not assignable during the individual's life but is licensable. It survives the individual's death for an initial period of 10 years, renewable for additional 5-year periods up to a maximum of 70 years post-mortem, provided there is active public use. Licenses for living individuals have specific duration limits (10 years, 5 years for minors, with court approval for minors).
Section 2(c)
Establishing Civil Liability for Unauthorized Digital Replicas
This section establishes civil liability for any individual or entity that publicly displays, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an unauthorized digital replica, or distributes products/services primarily designed to create such replicas without authorization. Liability generally requires notice or actual knowledge. The bill outlines several exclusions from liability, including bona fide news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries (with caveats), commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, and fleeting uses. However, these exclusions do not apply to digital replicas depicting sexually explicit conduct.
Section 2(d)
Safe Harbor Provisions and Notice-and-Takedown System
This section provides safe harbors for online service providers, shielding them from liability if they implement a notice-and-takedown system similar to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Providers must remove or disable access to infringing material upon receiving a valid notification from a right holder. For certain online services (predominantly user-uploaded content sites and digital music providers), they must also remove other publicly available instances of the unauthorized digital replica that match a digital fingerprint and were uploaded after valid notice. The section details requirements for notifications and counter-notifications, including penalties for false claims, and mandates the registration of a designated agent with the Copyright Office.
Section 2(e)
Civil Remedies for Violations
This section specifies who can bring a civil action (right holders, parents/guardians of minors, or entities with exclusive contracts for sound recording artists) and sets a 3-year statute of limitations from discovery of the violation. It explicitly states that disclaimers (e.g., "AI-generated" or "unauthorized") are not a defense. Remedies include statutory damages (ranging from $5,000 to $750,000 per work/product depending on the violator and their good faith efforts), actual damages plus profits, injunctive relief, and punitive damages for willful violations with malice or fraud. Attorney's fees are awarded to prevailing plaintiffs and to prevailing defendants if the action was not brought in good faith.
Section 2(g)
Preemption of State Law
This section establishes that the new federal digital replication rights preempt any state law causes of action for the protection of an individual's voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica in an expressive work. However, it explicitly carves out exceptions, stating it does not preempt state laws existing as of January 2, 2025, regarding digital replicas, state laws specifically regulating sexually explicit digital replicas or election-related digital replicas, or state laws regarding products/services capable of producing digital replicas.
Section 2(j) and (k)
Application to Past Conduct and Deceased Individuals
This section clarifies that liability under the Act only applies to conduct occurring after the date of enactment, and to licenses/contracts executed after enactment. However, the digital replication right itself applies to any individual, regardless of whether they died before, on, or after the date of enactment. For those who died before enactment, the right vests in their executors, heirs, assignees, or devisees. The Act takes effect 180 days after enactment.
For certain online services (predominantly user-uploaded material sites and digital music providers), the safe harbor requires them to remove or disable access not just to the specifically identified infringing material, but also to "all other publicly available instances of the work embodying the claimed unauthorized digital replica that... match the digital fingerprint... and are uploaded after valid, applicable notice was submitted to, and processed by, the provider."
Section 2(d)(1)(B)(ii)(bb) and (cc)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail within the safe harbor framework, common in legislative drafting for complex systems like content moderation. It's likely standard practice rather than evasive, but its operational implications are significant.
Case for: Proponents argue this "upload filter" or "stay-down" requirement is crucial for effective enforcement, preventing the same infringing content from being repeatedly re-uploaded after initial removal, thereby reducing the burden on right holders to issue multiple notices.
Case against: Critics might argue this imposes a significant technological and financial burden on online service providers, especially smaller ones, and could lead to over-blocking of legitimate content due to imperfect digital fingerprinting technology, potentially chilling free speech.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant operational and technological costs for online services, and a substantial shift in content moderation responsibilities towards automated systems.
A license described in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) involving a living individual who is younger than 18 years of age is valid only if the license agreement "is approved by a court in accordance with applicable State law."
Section 2(b)(2)(B)(ii)(cc)
Why it matters:This is a specific protection for a vulnerable group, often placed within the detailed conditions of a right. It's standard legal protection for minors rather than an evasive tactic.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a vital safeguard to protect minors from potentially exploitative long-term contracts regarding their digital likeness, ensuring their best interests are considered and protected by an impartial court.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring court approval for every license involving a minor could introduce significant delays and legal costs, potentially hindering young talent from entering into agreements quickly and efficiently.
Estimated impact: Increased legal and administrative burden for contracts involving minors, but enhanced protection for minors from potentially unfavorable or exploitative agreements.