Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel splits on HB2137 as advocates and industry clash over AI 'realistic digital imitations' rules
Summary
HB2137, which would prohibit certain harmful uses of AI-generated realistic digital imitations and require disclosure of synthetic performers, drew support from civil-rights advocates and concern from industry groups over First Amendment and implementation issues; the Motion Picture Association proposed substituting a federal 'No Fakes' model while the AG suggested constitutional amendments.
The committee heard sharply divergent views on House Bill 2137, a proposal that would bar certain harmful uses of AI-generated realistic digital imitations, require disclosures when synthetic performers are used in advertising, and create civil remedies for affected individuals.
Mean Cheney of the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women testified in support, describing the bill as addressing “growing risks posed by AI-generated images” and providing safeguards and remedies for people harmed by unauthorized synthetic imitations. Several civil-rights and consumer-privacy witnesses supported the measure’s intent to protect individuals from deceptive or harmful AI uses.
Opponents included Jamie Deweiler of the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women, who said she opposed HB2137 because she believed parts of it raise First Amendment concerns, and a Motion Picture Association representative who appeared by Zoom and said the industry supports the bill’s goals but favored a substitute based on the federal ‘No Fakes’ framework. The Motion Picture Association speaker urged working with the committee and the bill’s author to craft a balanced approach that protects performers’ rights while minimizing constitutional exposure.
Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom and committee staff flagged potential constitutional issues; the chair said AG-suggested amendments addressing constitutionality would be taken into account during decision making. At the committee’s decision point the chair adopted a set of technical and AG-recommended amendments and moved the bill out with those edits.
Why it matters: The bill intersects technology policy, free-speech questions and performers’ rights. Industry stakeholders urged substitution with an established federal-model bill to avoid First Amendment vulnerabilities, while advocates emphasized remedies and disclosure requirements as consumer-protection measures.
What’s next: The committee moved HB2137 out with amendments that incorporate technical fixes and AG guidance; staff will return the revised draft for floor consideration.
