Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disinformation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would add 'synthetic media' to fraud prohibition for election‑targeted misrepresentations
Summary
Delegate Feldmark’s proposal seeks to add fraud to the list of prohibited means to influence how people vote, explicitly defining fraud to include synthetic media or deepfakes; supporters urged quick action and asked for tight definitions to avoid chilling protected speech or satire.
Delegate Jessica Feldmark introduced House Bill 525 to close a statutory gap: existing Maryland law makes it illegal to use force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery or reward to influence whether a person votes, and it separately prohibits those methods to influence how a person votes (for whom they vote). The bill adds "fraud" to the list of prohibited methods for influencing how people vote and expressly defines fraud to include synthetic media or deepfakes used to mislead voters.
"Those two provisions are strikingly similar but ... why would fraud be prohibited for influencing a voter's decision to vote but not be prohibited in influencing a voter's decision about how to vote?" Feldmark asked, describing the change as a statutory correction to address modern deceptive media.
Testimony came from legal and technology experts and civic groups. Ben Yellen of the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security cited incidents in recent elections — an AI‑generated robocall in the New Hampshire primary instructing people not to vote, and an altered rally video in Indiana — to illustrate real‑world harms. Craig Holman of Public Citizen supported the bill and said the Federal Election Commission has moved in a similar direction; he urged a narrowly tailored definition focused on deliberate deception targeting candidates.
Kevin Kennelly of the Maryland Association of Counties urged a favorable report. Tech industry representatives (TechNet) asked for exemptions for platform and intermediary services and alignment with federal law language to avoid unintended liability for online service providers. Committee members raised questions about satire, parody and a candidate using a synthetic voice for their own campaign material; witnesses and the sponsor agreed those topics merited careful drafting and suggested narrowly targeted amendments to preserve legitimate speech and to allow candidate‑authorized uses.
Why it matters: testifiers described a rapid increase in deepfakes during the 2024 cycle and argued that deliberate synthetic‑media fraud intended to change votes warrants criminal prohibition. Lawmakers signaled willingness to refine the definition and procedure so that satire, authorized candidate uses and platform intermediaries are not unfairly criminalized.
Next steps: sponsor and experts said they would work on tightening definitions and exemptions (e.g., candidate authorization, platform immunity) and committee members encouraged bipartisan work to produce final language that balances fraud protection with free‑speech and platform concerns.
