More States to Push Laws Banning AI Election Deepfakes in 2024

At least seven states will consider legislation in 2024 that would restrict the use of artificial intelligence in political campaigns as experts warn about a flood of misinformation affecting elections.

“There’s an urgent need for state action,” said Robert Weissman, president of the election advocacy group Public Citizen. “The most important thing is to establish the standard that deepfakes are impermissible in the election context.”

Pending bills would effectively ban AI-made deepfakes by requiring disclosures when the technology is used to make images, video, or audio of candidates. If enacted, such restrictions would affect roughly half of the US electorate. Deepfakes are images or videos of a person’s likeness or other related things that have been digitally altered in a bid to misrepresent what happened in reality.

All of the states with pending bills—which include New York, Florida, and Wisconsin—have competitive congressional races next year as lawmakers in other states consider proposals of their own.

Five states—California, Texas, Michigan, Washington, and Minnesota—already have such laws in place, with lawmakers in Sacramento contemplating additional action that could include a full ban on AI in political communications.

On the federal level, Congress has lagged on tackling the subject compared to the states. The Federal Election Commission, however, is currently considering rule changes that would ban federal candidates from using generative AI tools to misrepresent their rivals.

State legislative action next year could go further by banning such behavior in elections at the local, state, and federal levels while enacting broader restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence in campaigns.

“We’re very concerned about deepfakes, especially in this election cycle, very concerned,” said New York Assemblyman Clyde Vanel (D), who hails from a state where Republicans won several swing districts last year while capturing a narrow congressional majority.

Range of Approaches

Bills in the seven states differ in important details, but they all aim to curb AI-made deepfakes by requiring content creators to reveal that election-related materials were made with the technology.

Washington is the only state with a deepfake law that applies year-round. That would change if legislation in Florida (SB 850), Wisconsin (SB 644), or New York (A7904 and SB 7592) moves as all those bills have similar provisions.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire (HB 1596), South Carolina (HB 4660), and New Jersey (AB 5510) have proposals that if enacted would only apply for the 90 days before an election. An Illinois bill (SB 1742) would impose a 30-day limit.

Another key difference among the various bills is who would fall under such measures and how they will be enforced.

The Wisconsin bill would apply to candidates, parties, and political committees, while bills in other states apply to anyone who distributes election materials that use generative AI. South Carolina and New Hampshire’s measures would specifically add corporations.

The New Jersey bill would potentially allow any “registered voter” to sue for “injunctive or other equitable relief” along with political candidates, who also would be able to take action under measures being considered in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

Lawmakers in New York, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin are considering tasking government bodies with enforcing rules under their measures to be considered.

The Illinois bill would apply to anyone who fails to disclose the use of an AI-created deepfakes created to “influence the result of an election” rather than one targeting a candidate specifically like bills in other states.

A key thing to watch in the year ahead will be likely court challenges to the growing number of state laws that target artificial intelligence in political campaigns, according to Hannah Miller, an election attorney with Wiley Rein LLP in Washington.

“There really remains to be seen whether these laws are going to hold up constitutionally in court,” Miller said.