Stakeholders press Senate committee to broaden Reeves’s bill on unauthorized AI use of voice, likeness; panel PBI’s measure for further study

Senate substitute legislation offered by Senator Reeves to add “voice or likeness” to an existing civil cause of action prompted a daylong debate Oct. 12 that included entertainment unions, tech industry representatives and civil‑liberties attorneys.

The substitute amends an existing code section to give a cause of action to people whose voice or likeness is used without consent; proponents said it protects artists, performers and public figures against unauthorized monetization and impersonation. Industry groups including the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Recording Academy spoke in favor, describing the bill as a “modest, important update.”

Opponents and experts urged expansion to account for AI‑generated deepfakes and machine‑generated replicas. Kirk Schroeder, an entertainment attorney and ABA co‑editor, told the committee the draft “does not go far enough” and warned Virginia could fall behind other states unless the law explicitly addresses artificial intelligence and deep‑fake voice synthesis. Schroeder suggested language drawn from Tennessee, California and New York and said courts and juries will soon confront lifelike synthetic voice and likeness cases.

Representative testimony: Rob Bohannon of the Motion Picture Association said the draft is “a positive step forward” and reflected extended stakeholder negotiations. Reid Wick of the Recording Academy said the bill “is a modest but very important update” that protects artists’ voices as a unique characteristic. Kirk Schroeder said the statute should be updated to include AI and machine‑generated likenesses to avoid leaving victims without a civil remedy.

Committee action: After extended discussion and offers of substitute language, the committee voted on a motion to pass the bill by indefinitely (PBI) and to forward the measure with a letter to Senator Adam Evans’s related study and the Boyd Graves commission for additional review. The motion carried 8–7; the effect is that the sponsor and stakeholders will return with revised language based on broader input.

Why it matters: The reach of AI tools and the speed of technological change have raised concerns among creators and performers that traditional civil‑law protections may not be sufficient for machine‑generated voice and likeness replication. The committee’s decision to send the bill for further study stopped a narrow statutory change from moving forward without additional AI‑specific protections.

Quote

- “If you pass the statute, all you’ve done is add likeness and voice,” attorney Kirk Schroeder said. “It would put Virginia maybe 10 years behind what’s happening around the country right now.”

Next steps: The sponsor and stakeholders will meet with legislative counsel and Boyd Graves staff to produce draft AI‑specific language and return to the committee. The committee also signaled it wants to coordinate Reeves’s measure with Senator Evans’s related bill and with any pending federal action.

Ending: The committee’s close, party‑lined vote to PBI the measure underlines the tension between producing immediate statutory protection for artists and the need for comprehensive AI‑specific drafting that withstands constitutional and preemption challenges.