Senate committee reviews S.23, a proposal to require disclosure for synthetic media targeting candidates within 90 days of elections

Rick Sainville of the Office of Legislative Council told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on Jan. 28 that S.23 would regulate synthetic media—images, audio or video created or intentionally manipulated with digital technology—to address deceptive representations of candidates intended to injure reputation, influence an election or otherwise deceive voters.

Sainville said the draft defines “deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media” as material that “appears to a reasonable person to represent an individual saying or doing something that did not occur or provides a reasonable person with a fundamentally different understanding or impression” than an unaltered original. The bill would prohibit publishing, communicating or distributing such material within 90 days of an election in which the person appears on the ballot unless the synthetic media includes a clear disclosure, for example: “This media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence.”

Under the draft, disclosure requirements vary by medium: visual disclosures must appear in a font size “easily readable by the average viewer” and remain visible for the full duration of a video; audio disclosures must be read at the start and repeated at intervals not exceeding two minutes for recordings longer than two minutes. Sainville said the text leaves certain standards (for example, what constitutes “easily readable”) to later refinement or to courts if challenged.

The bill contains multiple exemptions and limits. It would not apply to bona fide news programming (newscasts, interviews, documentaries, on‑the‑spot coverage) if the broadcast clearly acknowledges authentication questions, nor would it apply where broadcasters made a good‑faith effort to verify accuracy before airing. Internet news sites and regularly produced periodicals would have a separate disclosure path, and satire and parody are expressly exempted.

Civil penalties in the draft are graduated: up to $1,000 for a knowing violation; up to $5,000 if committed with intent to cause violence or bodily harm; higher fines apply for repeat offenses within five years (up to $10,000 or $15,000 in recidivist or violent‑intent cases). The bill also authorizes injunctive and equitable relief and allows the state attorney or attorney general to pursue enforcement.

Committee members raised multiple concerns. Senator White asked about practical enforcement and standards of proof; Sainville said intent and “knows or should have known” would be measured by a civil, preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard (that it was more likely than not the person had intent). Senators questioned whether resharing content on social platforms would be covered; Sainville said the bill’s terms “publish, communicate or otherwise distribute” were intended to be broad enough to cover sharing but that the text could be edited for clarity.

Members also asked about constitutional limits. Sainville noted other states have enacted similar laws and that a federal district court recently ruled a California law of this type unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, underscoring the need to craft narrow definitions and exemptions. Senators suggested the committee obtain testimony from constitutional experts and officials from states that have implemented similar statutes to evaluate unintended consequences.

No formal vote was taken; committee members discussed next steps, including additional testimony from constitutional experts, states that have adopted related laws, and potential witnesses such as the bill sponsor and representatives of social‑media platforms and news organizations.

Sainville recommended further drafting and stakeholder input before the committee advances the measure.