Senate committee advances bill requiring explicit disclosures for synthetic media in election content

The Senate Committee on Government Operations voted March 14 to report S 23 draft 1.2 favorably, advancing a bill that would require explicit disclosures when synthetic media is used in election-related content and create narrow remedies for enforcement.

The committee considered a strike-all amendment and several edits to the bill’s definitions and exemptions before taking the procedural vote. Rick Segal, of the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee, “The bill . . . has a few changes since the last time you saw it. This is draft 1.1 of the committee amendment.”

Committee members focused on how the bill defines synthetic media and how precise the required disclosure must be. The amended definition adds language that the media must be presented “in a manner that . . . appears to a reasonable person to be an authentic recording of an individual.” Segal told senators the statute would require an exact disclosure phrase in some places: “So it's gotta be that exact disclosure.” Several members raised concerns about whether a third-party platform label — for example a toggle that automatically tags content on Instagram or Facebook — would satisfy the disclosure requirement. Segal said a platform-generated label would protect the person who added the disclosure, but a person who submitted the content without the required language would not be protected.

The committee also debated a list of exemptions in the draft. The bill’s exceptions would exclude certain platforms and service providers from liability for content created by others, similar to federal law from the 1990s that limits platform liability for third-party content. The committee discussed explicit exemptions for websites, streaming platforms and mobile applications, as well as for telephone and internet service providers. Segal described these providers as services that “are providing the content without having any say in what you hold on their, wires.”

Members questioned a proposed exemption for “commentary of general interest,” and Wendy Mays, executive director for the Latin Association of Broadcasters, told the committee the phrase had been recommended by a national broadcaster but that she could not define it precisely: “That was recommended to us by a national organization that is a broadcaster. So what it exactly means? I really can't answer you, Senator. I'm sorry.” Several senators said they preferred striking or clarifying that language.

The bill would preserve an exception for satire and parody, and committee members discussed jurisdictional and enforcement limits. Segal said the draft would add a court-enforceable takedown remedy in the relevant subchapter but emphasized its limits: “No monetary, just injunctions. Nope.” Members noted possible difficulty pursuing foreign actors or other entities outside state jurisdiction.

After discussion, the committee moved to report the amended S 23 out of committee. A motion to report S 23 draft 1.2 favorably was made, seconded and recorded with the following recorded yes votes: Senator Clarkson, Senator Hart, Senator Budowski, Senator White and Senator Kolomar. The committee chair said a clean copy of the amendment would be produced for members.

The committee recessed to consider S 84 later in the day; sponsors indicated they expected further floor activity on S 23 after caucus briefings.

Details omitted from the record include the precise statutory citations for the bill’s placement in law (committee discussion referred to the bill living in “subchapter” material and to a chapter/subchapter numbering in Title 17) and the full roll-call vote count beyond the named senators who voiced votes at the meeting.