Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutors, advocates support bill to criminalize fraudulent deep‑fake identity impersonation
Summary
House Bill 14‑25 would add identity‑fraud provisions to cover AI‑generated deepfakes and permit civil injunctive relief; prosecutors and victims' advocates urged the Judiciary Committee to pass the bill to address cases where existing law does not reach deepfake impersonation, while public‑defender witnesses warned about potential overbroad
A bipartisan group of prosecutors, victims' advocates and industry representatives testified in support of House Bill 14‑25, a proposal to update Maryland's identity‑fraud statutes to cover fraudulent use of artificial intelligence and deep‑fake representations.
Why it matters: witnesses described cases in which AI‑generated audio or video was used to impersonate real people and cause reputational, emotional and public‑safety harms. The panel cited a high‑profile county case in which an audio deep fake attributed racist and anti‑Semitic remarks to a school principal; prosecutors said existing identity‑theft statutes did not neatly reach that conduct. "This bill modernizes Maryland's criminal laws to address gaps in our current statutes," testified Jenna Jacoby on behalf of the sponsor. John Cox, deputy state's attorney for Baltimore County, described active prosecution work related to such a case and said the bill would allow prosecutors to pursue identity‑fraud charges tied to AI impersonation.
Bill provisions and civil relief: the bill would criminalize knowingly using AI‑generated imagery or audio to impersonate or falsely depict an identifiable person with intent to defraud or cause harm. The measure includes a private right of action and injunctive relief so victims can seek courts' help to stop distribution and remove content quickly. Deputy state prosecutor Sarah David said injunctive relief is critical because the immediate step often needed in deepfake incidents is to halt distribution.
First Amendment and scope concerns: public‑defender witnesses urged caution, arguing the bill as drafted could be overbroad, risk chilling lawful parody and satire, and impose felony penalties in cases where civil remedies would be appropriate. Motion Picture Association‑suggested drafting amendments and First Amendment guidance were discussed; witnesses said several technical amendments were in negotiation to narrow terms like "mislead" and to focus on knowing, fraudulent intent.
No committee vote is recorded in the transcript. Supporters urged a favorable report after clarifying language to protect legitimate expression while covering malicious impersonation.
