Committee hears testimony on bill to expand unlawful dissemination law to cover AI-generated intimate images

The House Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing Thursday on House Bill 2,299, a proposal to expand Oregon’s crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image to explicitly include digitally created, manipulated or altered depictions that are reasonably realistic, including those produced with artificial intelligence.

Proponents told the committee that current law, enacted in 2015, does not clearly cover AI‑generated “intimate deepfakes,” leaving victims without an avenue for criminal prosecution. Representative Kevin Mannix, a chief sponsor, said HB 2,299 would divide the offense into degrees based on the offender’s mental state and raise penalties for first‑degree unlawful dissemination to a class C felony on a first offense and a class B felony for repeat offenses. "This bill fixes that gap by changing the definition of image to include digitally created, manipulated or altered depictions that are reasonably realistic," Mannix said.

Why it matters: Supporters said advances in generative AI have made intimate deepfakes easier and cheaper to produce and that the harms are real and widespread. Representative Vanessa Hartman said victims are often unable to obtain relief under the current statute because defendants argue they lacked specific intent to harm. "Now, a perpetrator doesn't even need an explicit image of their victim," Hartman said. "AI can strip away clothing, creating a fabricated but disturbingly realistic image of someone without their consent and without their knowledge." Testifier Christy George described long‑running trauma stemming from non‑AI image manipulation posted by someone she believed to be a family friend.

What supporters presented: Witnesses brought national and local data and examples. Ashley Kim of Public Citizen said the prevalence of intimate deepfakes has surged, pointing to a 2023 estimate of more than 95,000 deepfake videos online and studies showing women and girls are disproportionately targeted. Representative Mannix and other proponents pointed to increases in reports to the Oregon Department of Justice's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and to legislation in 31 other states addressing similar conduct.

Constitutional and technical concerns: Maylee Browning, legislative director for the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and Aaron Nott of the Oregon Judicial Department raised concerns about how the bill's proposed change to the culpable mental state could interact with constitutional protections for speech. Nott explained that Oregon courts have applied a three‑part test originating in State v. Robertson and said the proposal to move some elements from intentional to reckless raises a constitutional question that the judicial branch "will be watching closely." Browning said attaching a reckless mental state to a harassment‑type offense could risk criminalizing offensive but protected speech and suggested technical edits to tighten the language.

Scope and elements: Sponsors said the bill includes limiting language to require that a defendant knowingly causes the disclosure or acts with conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the disclosure will harass, humiliate or injure the person. Committee members asked for clarification about scenarios such as school‑age incidents and whether multiple victims would produce multiple charges; sponsors said answers could depend on case facts and, for matters involving minors, juvenile procedures would apply.

No final action: The committee received testimony from multiple proponents and technical commenters and closed the public hearing on HB 2,299; no vote or final amendment was recorded during the meeting.

Ending: Supporters urged the committee to move the bill forward, citing the rapid growth of AI tools that can fabricate intimate depictions and the disproportionate impact on women and girls. Technical and constitutional concerns raised by defense and judicial representatives indicate potential revision work ahead if the bill advances.