Committee hears bill to cover realistic AI ‘deepfake’ intimate images under Oregon’s intimate-image law

The Senate Committee on Judiciary on April 28 heard public testimony on House Bill 2,299 A, a measure to expand Oregon’s unlawful dissemination of an intimate image statute to include digitally created, manipulated or altered depictions that are “reasonably realistic.”

Supporters told the committee the bill closes a gap in the 2015 revenge-porn law that leaves victims of AI-generated intimate images without recourse. Sponsor Representative Kevin Mannix said the bill keeps the statute’s existing focus on intent and harm while extending the definition of “image.”

Representative Kevin Mannix, sponsor (House District 21), told the committee: “Oregon's revenge porn statute was originally enacted in 2015, criminalizing the nonconsensual dissemination through an Internet website of an intimate image with intent to harass the victim so long as the dissemination harassed or injured the victim.” He added the bill “does not change the law's focus. There must be an intent to harass, humiliate, or injure… and the bill does not change the level of crime. It remains a Class A misdemeanor.”

Co-sponsor Representative Vanessa Hartman (House District 40) framed the measure as a response to rapid advances in artificial intelligence. “We live in a world where artificial intelligence is advancing faster than most of us can even comprehend,” Hartman said, describing how realistic images can be generated from a person’s online photo and used to humiliate or harass.

Several witnesses described personal and prosecutorial impacts. Christy George described years of photos and doctored images posted about her and her daughter and said, “These images and stories have caused tremendous anxiety and PTSD in both myself and my daughter. We rarely feel safe.” Brendan Murphy, Chief Deputy District Attorney for Marion County, speaking for the Oregon District Attorneys Association, called the bill “a narrow fix that clarifies that disclosing digitally altered or AI generated images of another person without their consent is criminal behavior in Oregon.”

Testimony and committee discussion emphasized that the change is intended to preserve free-speech protections by limiting coverage to depictions that are “reasonably realistic.” Murphy said the phrase was meant to create a reasonable-person standard that would exclude obvious satire or political hyperbole while capturing realistic sexualized deepfakes intended to harm.

The bill was described in committee as having passed the House unanimously (56 ayes; excused: 3; excused for business: 1) and was presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee for public hearing. The committee did not take a formal vote on HB 2,299 A during the April 28 hearing.

Advocates asked the committee to move the measure forward so victims of AI-generated intimate-image dissemination could pursue criminal remedies under ORS 163.427. There were no further actions recorded at the hearing; committee staff indicated additional witnesses or time might be scheduled later.

The committee is expected to consider further briefings and any potential amendments in a subsequent work session.