Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Privacy And Extortion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would criminalize extortion using real or AI-fabricated intimate images
Summary
Representative Koehnauer also proposed HB 514 to expand Montana's privacy and communications statute to criminalize distributing or threatening to distribute real or digitally fabricated sexual images for the purpose of extortion; prosecutors and public defenders flagged statutory scope and penalties.
Representative Jill Koehnauer told the committee House Bill 514 would add digitally fabricated images to the state’s privacy-and-communications statutes and create a right of action and criminal penalties for people who publish, distribute or threaten to distribute intimate images without consent to obtain money or other valuable consideration.
The draft adds a definition of a "digitally fabricated" image as one created through techniques — including artificial intelligence — that realistically misrepresent an identifiable individual as engaging in conduct they did not in fact perform. Under the text, a person who attempts to extort money by threatening to publicize a genuine or fabricated intimate image would be guilty of a misdemeanor on a first offense and face felony penalties and increased fines on subsequent convictions.
Brett Chandelson, director of the Office of the State Public Defender, testified as an informational witness and urged the committee to watch for potential overbreadth. Chandelson said lawmakers should carefully consider how criminal provisions escalate from misdemeanor to felony and asked whether the scheme could be calibrated to avoid over-punishing first-time or youthful offenders.
Koehnauer said she envisioned the statute as a response to the rise of so-called "revenge" production and online extortion and emphasized protections for children and vulnerable adults. Committee members asked whether penalties matched the harms, whether the misdemeanor/ felony thresholds were appropriate, and whether the bill's definitions were sufficiently clear to avoid unintended prosecutions of ordinary conduct or lawful reporting.
No opponents were recorded in the hearing; Chandelson said the Office of the State Public Defender was available to assist the committee with technical drafting to narrow any overbreadth concerns. The committee did not act at the hearing and asked sponsors to consider revisions.
