Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Disinformation Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada bill would require disclosure when political materials are altered by synthetic media; bill stops short of criminal penalties
Summary
Assembly Bill 73 would require disclosures on political communications that are produced or altered using artificial intelligence, exempt small-value items and provide a private right of action for candidates targeted by deceptive synthetic media; sponsors said the measure balances transparency and First Amendment limits.
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar and Chief Deputy Gabriel De Cara presented Assembly Bill 73, legislation aimed at increasing transparency when political communications are produced or altered with artificial intelligence.
Aguilar told the committee AI is already being used in political campaigning and that the bill does not attempt to limit protected political speech. The bill would require disclosures that an item is generated or altered using synthetic media, with a de minimis retail-cost exemption of $5 similar to other statutory exemptions. The draft also includes a private right of action allowing a targeted candidate to seek relief in court for deceptive deepfakes.
De Cara said the bill was modeled on Washington state legislation but amended to reflect Nevada’s unique election laws. He and other proponents said they worked with media stakeholders and streaming platforms to clarify liability language and to exempt certain entities from newly created liability to preserve parity among media types.
Senators pressed for stronger criminal penalties. Senator Kris Krasner argued the conduct of producing deceptive deepfakes designed to intentionally mislead voters should be criminalized at least as a misdemeanor; other senators echoed concerns that fraudulent synthetic media can artificially influence public perception. De Cara said criminalizing such speech is more likely to be struck down in court and that the bill authors aimed to draft a measure more defensible on constitutional grounds.
Supporters including advocacy groups and media organizations testified in favor after amendments addressed earlier concerns; broadcasters said they wanted assurance that they would not be held liable for running paid ads produced with synthetic media. No formal vote was taken during the hearing.
Why it matters: The bill is part of a national wave of legislation to require labeling or disclosures for AI-generated political material. It seeks to provide voters with contextual information about whether images, audio or video have been created or materially altered by AI while seeking to avoid constitutional challenges to content-based restrictions on political speech.
