Artificial Intelligence Scam Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 16, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to modernize anti-fraud laws by specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence in scams, expanding regulatory reach to new communication methods, and improving public awareness and inter-agency coordination.
What it actually does
This bill expands federal laws to combat fraud enabled by artificial intelligence, making it unlawful to use AI to impersonate individuals or entities with intent to defraud. It updates existing telemarketing and robocall prevention acts to include text messages and video conference calls, and mandates disclosures when AI is used to emulate humans in communications. Additionally, it establishes an advisory group and enhances reporting requirements for federal agencies on AI-enabled scams.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial and timely update to consumer protection laws, necessary to address the rapidly evolving threat of AI-enabled fraud, particularly deepfakes and voice cloning. They contend it will provide law enforcement with essential tools to hold perpetrators accountable, protect vulnerable populations like seniors, and restore trust in digital communications by mandating transparency around AI use.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that overly broad definitions of AI-enabled fraud or stringent disclosure requirements could inadvertently stifle innovation in beneficial AI applications or impose undue compliance burdens on legitimate businesses. They may also argue that existing fraud laws are sufficient and that new legislation could lead to overreach or unintended consequences without clear boundaries.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on AI-Enabled Impersonation Fraud
This provision makes it illegal for any person to engage in deceptive acts by impersonating a government or business entity, or to replicate an individual's image or voice using artificial intelligence, with the intent to defraud. It also prohibits providing substantial assistance to such fraudulent activities. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC enforcement authority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly addresses the emerging threat of AI-powered deepfakes and voice cloning, providing a clear legal basis to prosecute and deter fraudsters who exploit these technologies. They contend it closes a critical gap in existing law that was not designed for advanced AI capabilities.
Critics contend
Some might argue that the 'intent to defraud' clause could be challenging to prove, potentially limiting the effectiveness of the prohibition. Concerns could also be raised about the scope of 'replicate any individual's image or voice' and its potential impact on legitimate creative or educational uses of AI, though the 'intent to defraud' qualifier aims to mitigate this.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust fraud prevention against potential concerns about over-regulation of rapidly developing AI technologies. The challenge lies in crafting language that effectively targets malicious use without inadvertently hindering beneficial innovation.
Section 3(b)
Seniors Fraud Advisory Office Update
This section amends the Seniors Fraud Prevention Act of 2022 to specifically include 'information about scams enabled by artificial intelligence' within the scope of public awareness efforts conducted by the Seniors Fraud Advisory Office. This ensures that educational materials and outreach to seniors will cover the latest AI-driven fraud tactics.
Section 4(a)
Expansion of Telemarketing Act to Text and Video, and AI Disclosure
This section amends the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to expand its definitions of 'telemarketing' to include text messages and video conference calls, alongside traditional interstate telephone calls. Crucially, it adds a new requirement that any person using artificial intelligence to emulate a human being in a telephone call or text message must promptly and clearly disclose this fact to the recipient.
Section 4(b)(1) and (C)
Expansion of TCPA to AI-Generated Voices and Text Messages, and Disclosure
This section significantly amends the Communications Act of 1934 (specifically the TCPA) by expanding the definition of 'artificial or prerecorded voice' to explicitly include AI-generated speech or conduct that appears authentic but is not. It extends restrictions on automatic telephone dialing systems and artificial voices to text messages. Furthermore, it mandates that any person making a call or sending a text message using an autodialer or AI to emulate a human must include a disclosure at the beginning of the communication stating that such technology is being used.
Section 4(b)(2)
Clarification on Section 230 and Telemarketing Act
This provision adds a new paragraph to Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, explicitly stating that nothing in Section 230 (which generally provides immunity to online platforms for third-party content) shall be construed to limit the application of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act or its implementing regulations. This clarifies that platforms cannot claim Section 230 immunity for violations related to telemarketing fraud.
Section 5(b)
FTC and FCC Joint Artificial Intelligence Scam Prevention Advisory Group
This section establishes a joint Artificial Intelligence Scams Advisory Group, co-chaired by the FTC and FCC, and including representatives from other federal agencies (Treasury, AG, CFPB) and various private sectors (retail, gift cards, telecom, wire-transfer, consumer advocacy). The group is tasked with collecting information on existing educational materials for scam prevention, identifying inadequacies, and creating model materials and best practices to help protect consumers from AI-enabled scams. It will report annually for five years before terminating.
These sections introduce new, detailed definitions for 'text message' and 'video conference call' into the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, and expand the definition of 'artificial or prerecorded voice' in the Communications Act of 1934 to include AI-generated speech or conduct that appears authentic but is not. These definitions are critical for determining the scope of the bill's regulatory reach.
Section 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)
Why it matters:Defining terms within existing statutory frameworks is standard legislative practice to ensure legal precision and integrate new concepts into established law.
Case for: Supporters argue that precise definitions are necessary to ensure the bill's provisions are enforceable and apply correctly to modern communication technologies and AI capabilities, preventing ambiguity and future legal challenges.
Case against: Some might argue that overly technical or broad definitions could inadvertently capture legitimate uses of AI or communication methods, leading to unintended regulatory burdens or confusion.
Estimated impact: These definitions fundamentally shape the applicability and impact of the entire bill, extending federal anti-fraud and telemarketing regulations to a wider array of digital communications and AI technologies.
This section amends the annual reporting requirements for the FCC regarding robocalls and caller ID information. Specifically, it changes the language from reporting on 'calls made in violation' to simply 'violations' and adds 'high-volume, unlawful text messages' to the scope of reporting. This subtle change broadens the reporting mandate to encompass the full range of illegal activities, not just the calls themselves.
Section 5(d)(1)
Why it matters:Such linguistic adjustments are common in legislative drafting to clarify or expand the scope of existing mandates without creating entirely new sections of law.
Case for: Proponents argue that this change ensures more comprehensive and accurate reporting on illegal activities, including new forms of communication like text messages, providing a clearer picture of the scale of the problem for Congress and regulators.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical clarifications to reporting requirements, as they are generally seen as administrative improvements.
Estimated impact: This change will lead to more inclusive data collection and reporting by the FCC on illegal robocalls and text messages, potentially influencing future policy decisions and enforcement priorities.