House panel advances bill creating criminal penalties for nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-forged content

The House Judiciary subcommittee on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and special laws on Oct. 12 voted to give H.3058 a favorable report as amended, a bill that would make knowingly sharing intimate images of another person without their effective consent a crime and would also criminalize digitally forged intimate images, including those produced or substantially altered using machine-learning techniques.

The legislation defines “intimate image” as a still or video image of an identifiable person that depicts exposed intimate body parts, bodily fluids or sexually explicit conduct, and defines a “digitally forged intimate image” to include images substantially modified or generated with machine learning. Representative Moore, chair of the subcommittee, said the bill “is meant to create penalties and address the problem of revenge ****.”

The amendment the subcommittee adopted narrows the consent language and divides offenses by intent: unauthorized dissemination without intent to harm would be a misdemeanor (up to one year), while dissemination done to cause physical, mental, economic or reputational harm, or for financial gain, would be a felony (first offense up to five years and up to $5,000 fine; second/subsequent up to 10 years and up to $10,000 fine). The amendment also treats multiple images distributed as part of the same incident as a single offense and preserves an exception allowing law enforcement to create such images “during lawful criminal investigations.”

Subcommittee members raised questions about scope and unintended consequences, particularly for juveniles. Representative Rose asked whether a single consensual text sent from one person to another — later re‑shared by the recipient to a broader group — would make the original sender criminally liable. Moore answered that the bill’s elements require knowingly sharing without the depicted person’s consent and that “text messages may be more dangerous” than internet posts; he said one-off sharing without harmful intent would likely be treated as a misdemeanor and, for juveniles, adjudication in family court was expected.

Representative Bamberg and others urged caution on penalties for adolescents and urged distinguishing AI‑forged images from photos taken in real life; Bamberg suggested separate bills. Representative Wetmore recommended outreach and education and suggested delaying the effective date to allow agencies time to prepare and notify the public.

After debate, the subcommittee approved the committee amendment and then gave H.3058 a favorable report as amended by roll call: 23 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 not voting. The subcommittee ordered roll call and recorded the favorable recommendation to the full Judiciary Committee.

Copies of the bill and the committee amendment specify that multiple-image distributions arising from the same incident are treated as one offense and that disclosures in the context of criminal investigation are exempt. The measure would apply to adults and juveniles; the text preserves existing juvenile adjudication processes where applicable.

The department or agency assigned to implement the law — if it becomes statute — was not specified in the subcommittee record. The bill’s sponsors and amendment proponents indicated they expect further refinement on intent and scientifc definitions before floor consideration.

H.3058 now moves to the full Judiciary Committee with a favorable report as amended.