Technical corrections only. The two versions of S. 1837 are substantively identical, with the only changes being updates to the legislative status (from 'Introduced in Senate' to 'Engrossed in Senate') and the corresponding dates. No substantive policy changes were made between v1 and v2.
DEFIANCE Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 creates new federal civil remedies for victims of non-consensual intimate deepfakes and strengthens existing protections against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
What it actually does
This bill, the DEFIANCE Act of 2025, amends existing federal law (15 U.S.C. 6851) to expand civil action rights for individuals harmed by the non-consensual disclosure of intimate visual depictions and introduces a new federal cause of action specifically for 'intimate digital forgeries' (deepfakes). It defines key terms like 'identifiable individual' and 'intimate digital forgery,' establishes who can sue, specifies available relief including substantial liquidated damages, and sets a 10-year statute of limitations for claims.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides crucial legal recourse for victims of rapidly evolving digital abuse, addressing the severe psychological, social, and economic harms caused by deepfakes and non-consensual image sharing. They emphasize the urgent need for federal action given the interstate nature of online dissemination, the ease of creating such content, and the inadequacy of existing state laws to provide comprehensive protection and redress.
Opponents contend
The provided bill text does not explicitly detail opposition arguments. However, potential concerns might include the breadth of the definition of 'intimate digital forgery' and the 'indistinguishable' standard, which some might argue could lead to subjective interpretations or inadvertently impact legitimate digital content creation, satire, or artistic expression, despite the bill's focus on intimate depictions.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025' or the 'DEFIANCE Act of 2025'. This provides a common and concise name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and impactful short title helps to communicate the bill's purpose and importance to the public and facilitates legislative and judicial referencing.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Digital Forgeries
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding the prevalence and harms of digital forgeries, often called deepfakes. It notes that this technology is ubiquitous, easy to use, and can manipulate images of real people to depict non-consensual sexually intimate conduct. The findings emphasize the profound psychological, social, and economic harms to victims, including privacy violations, loss of control, stigmatization, mental health issues, and the use of deepfakes for harassment and other crimes, classifying them as a form of image-based sexual abuse.
Section 3(a)
Amendment to Definitions: 'Consent' and 'Intimate Digital Forgery'
This section amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, by modifying the definition of 'consent' to explicitly include 'competent.' Crucially, it introduces new definitions for 'identifiable individual' and 'intimate digital forgery.' The latter is defined as an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual that falsely represents them or intimate conduct, is created by technological means, and is 'indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction' to a reasonable person, regardless of any labels or context indicating it is fake.
Section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii)
New Federal Civil Action for Intimate Digital Forgeries
This section establishes a new federal civil cause of action, allowing an identifiable individual who is the subject of an intimate digital forgery to sue persons who knowingly produced, possessed with intent to disclose, disclosed, or solicited/received such forgeries without the individual's consent. Liability applies if the person knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of consent and the activity affects interstate commerce. It also allows action against those who knowingly produced a forgery without consent, knowing or recklessly disregarding that the individual would be harmed by the production.
Section 3(b)(3)
Available Remedies and Damages
This section specifies the relief available in a civil action, including actual damages, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees. It also allows for punitive damages and equitable relief such as temporary restraining orders or permanent injunctions to delete or cease disclosure of the forgery. Notably, it introduces liquidated damages of $150,000, or $250,000 if the conduct was related to actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. It also outlines how to calculate a defendant's profits for damages.
Section 3(b)(4)
Protections for Plaintiff Privacy in Civil Actions
This section authorizes courts to issue orders protecting the privacy of a plaintiff in a civil action. These protections include permitting the plaintiff to use a pseudonym, requiring redaction of personal identifying information from public filings or filing documents under seal, and issuing protective orders for discovery to ensure that intimate visual depictions or forgeries remain under the care, custody, and control of the court.
Section 3(b)(6)
Extended Statute of Limitations
This section establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for actions commenced under this Act. The 10-year period begins from the later of two dates: when the identifiable individual reasonably discovers the violation that forms the basis for the claim, or when the identifiable individual reaches 18 years of age.
Defines an 'intimate digital forgery' as being 'indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the identifiable individual when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person.'
Section 3(a)(5)(A)(iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for providing precise legal definitions that delineate the scope of a new cause of action, ensuring it is narrowly tailored to the intended harm.
Case for: Proponents argue this specificity is crucial to ensure the law targets highly realistic forgeries that genuinely deceive or profoundly harm victims, rather than poorly made fakes, obvious satire, or artistic expressions that are clearly not intended to be taken as real intimate depictions. It aims to prevent overreach.
Case against: Critics might argue that 'indistinguishable' is subjective and could lead to inconsistent application by courts, potentially excluding victims of less sophisticated but still harmful manipulations. They might also contend that even clearly labeled but highly realistic fakes can cause significant harm, regardless of whether they are 'indistinguishable' from authentic content.
Estimated impact: This clause significantly narrows the scope of actionable deepfakes to those that are highly convincing and deceptive, potentially excluding less sophisticated manipulations or those where the 'fakeness' is readily apparent, even if the content is intimate and non-consensual.
Amends the definition of 'consent' to mean 'an affirmative, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in a particular activity, free from coercion, force, fraud, or intimidation, and given by a conscious, *competent*, and unimpaired individual.'
Section 3(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for refining and clarifying existing legal definitions to address specific vulnerabilities or ensure comprehensive coverage.
Case for: Proponents argue that adding 'competent' clarifies that consent must come from an individual with the mental capacity to understand and agree to the activity, thereby strengthening protections against the exploitation of individuals with cognitive impairments or diminished capacity. It aligns with broader legal principles of informed consent.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against strengthening protections for vulnerable individuals by clarifying the requirements for valid consent. Any concerns would likely be about the practical interpretation of 'competent' in specific legal contexts.
Estimated impact: This change broadens the scope of individuals who cannot legally provide consent, thereby expanding potential protections for a more vulnerable population and clarifying liability for those who exploit such incapacities.