QUIET Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance transparency regarding AI-generated communications and deter malicious AI impersonation by requiring disclosure and imposing substantially higher penalties for fraudulent use.
What it actually does
The QUIET Act mandates that any robocall or text message utilizing artificial intelligence to mimic a human voice or interaction must clearly disclose the use of AI at the beginning of the communication. Furthermore, it significantly increases the maximum forfeiture penalties and criminal fines for violations involving AI voice or text message impersonation when there is an intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain value.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that as AI technology advances, it becomes increasingly easy for bad actors to deceive the public through sophisticated robocalls and texts. This bill provides essential consumer protection by ensuring transparency through mandatory disclosure and by establishing stronger deterrents against fraudulent AI impersonation, thereby safeguarding individuals from financial exploitation and other harms.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that requiring a disclosure at the very beginning of a call or text may not be effective, as many recipients may hang up or delete messages before receiving the information. They could also argue that enforcing these regulations against often international robocall operations will be challenging, and that existing laws might already provide sufficient recourse, potentially making new regulations overly burdensome for legitimate AI communication uses.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions, making it highly accessible for public review.
Section 2, amending Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding subsection (k)
Disclosure Required for Robocalls Using AI
This provision requires that any person making a robocall or sending a text message that uses artificial intelligence to emulate a human being must disclose this fact at the very beginning of the communication. It also provides specific definitions for 'robocall' (including automated dialing systems or artificial/prerecorded voices) and 'text message' (covering various digital formats like SMS, MMS, RCS, but excluding real-time two-way voice/video).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this disclosure is crucial for consumer protection, enabling individuals to immediately identify and exercise caution with AI-generated content that might be deceptive. It empowers recipients to make informed decisions about engaging with potentially manipulated communications.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a simple disclosure could be easily overlooked or circumvented by malicious actors, or that it could create an unnecessary burden on legitimate businesses using AI for customer service or informational purposes, potentially leading to a less efficient user experience.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer protection against potential burdens on legitimate AI communication. A key tension is whether a disclosure at the 'beginning' of a communication is truly effective, especially if recipients quickly disengage.
Section 3, amending Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 by adding subsection (l)
Enhanced Penalties for AI Voice or Text Message Impersonation
This provision doubles the maximum forfeiture penalties and criminal fines for violations of Section 227 (which governs robocalls and unsolicited communications) if the violation involves using artificial intelligence to impersonate an individual or entity. This enhancement applies specifically when the impersonation is carried out with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. These stricter penalties apply to violations occurring after the bill's enactment.