Senate committee debates S.23 on synthetic media in elections; seeks AG and secretary of state input

The Senate Government Operations Committee on Thursday resumed testimony on S.23, an act "relating to the use of synthetic media in elections," hearing testimony from Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, and Chris Gilrein of TechNet and discussing whether the bill should require labels, prohibit certain content, or place legal responsibility on platforms and broadcasters.

Burns, representing the consumer and environmental advocacy group VPIRG, told the committee "the threat is quite severe that voters can't be misled, and essentially misled," and urged stronger restrictions than simple disclosure. "A label alone, a label in English, you know, it only goes so far," he said, adding he would "love to see them prohibited" where legally possible.

The debate centered on three themes: (1) how broadly to define ‘‘synthetic’’ or ‘‘deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media,’’ (2) whether liability or enforcement should fall on creators, the platforms that distribute content, or the broadcasters that carry paid advertising, and (3) whether reliable technical tools exist to detect AI-generated media.

Chris Gilrein, representing TechNet, urged narrower legal exposure for platforms and infrastructure providers. He said his group supports holding "individuals responsible for the creation and dissemination of election material intended to deceive or defame," and sought language that keeps liability on the person who created and disseminated deceptive material rather than on the tools or pipes used to carry it. "Liability for disclosing the use of AI and election communications remains on the person who created and disseminated that material with the intent to deceive, not on the tools used to create it," Gilrein said.

Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about broadcasters and local outlets that accept paid political ads. Several senators noted that broadcast stations are often contractually required under Federal Communications Commission rules to run paid political advertising, and observed that local production or ad-delivery staff may lack the expertise to spot synthetic content embedded in submitted audio or images. One senator said broadcasters might decide to stop carrying political ads rather than take on the risk.

Members also questioned what technical means exist to detect synthetic media. Gilrein and other witnesses said some detection tools exist and can identify synthetic content "with a certain degree of confidence, some of the time," but that the technology is evolving and adversaries are simultaneously improving their methods. That uncertainty informed discussion of the bill's "knowing" or intent standard: committee members asked whether the standard would require platforms or broadcasters to employ detection tools and thereby impose an effective obligation to procure and rely on imperfect technology.

Rick Sable of the Office of Legislative Council clarified that the bill's draft distinguishes a general definition of synthetic media from language that defines which synthetic media the bill treats as "deceptive and fraudulent" in an election context. The committee discussed whether that distinction is sufficiently clear in the current draft.

Committee members heard that related statutory changes are already under way in other areas: a separate bill last year amended the criminal statute on nonconsensual distribution of explicit images to include "an image created or altered by digitization," cited in committee discussion as 13 V.S.A. §2606.

After extended discussion, Senator Glaesen proposed that the committee formally ask the secretary of state and the attorney general's office to meet with interested parties (broadcasters, platform representatives, public-interest groups and legislative counsel) and return a recommended approach. Several members agreed; the committee did not take a roll-call vote but accepted the request and planned a follow-up meeting and possible amendment drafting.

No formal prohibition or final amendment was adopted during the hearing. Senators indicated they may pursue a narrower, incremental bill this session and seek an opinion from the attorney general about what approach the state could feasibly defend in court.

The committee heard options ranging from a labeling-only requirement, to statutory prohibitions against knowingly deceptive synthetic election material, to specific exemptions for certain actors. Witnesses and senators agreed the primary trade-off is legal risk and likely litigation costs if Vermont adopts an especially broad prohibition; the attorney general's guidance will be used to gauge defensibility.

The committee scheduled further work with the secretary of state and attorney general, and asked staff to circulate suggested drafting language from stakeholders, including broadcasters and trade groups, before the next meeting.