The NO FAKES Act aims to tackle AI-generated impersonations, but critics argue it could lead to unjust censorship of satire, commentary, and news by enabling platforms to remove content preemptively and impose costly penalties for judgment errors.
- NO FAKES could enable mass removal of lawful satire, commentary, and news.
- Platforms might censor first to avoid $750,000 penalties per misjudged work.
- New federal likeness rights risk stripping individuals of control over their face and voice.
What happened
The NO FAKES Act is a Senate bill designed to address the problem of harmful AI-generated impersonations by creating a new federal intellectual property right related to a person’s likeness. However, civil society organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have raised concerns that the legislation’s broad wording and heavy penalties could suppress legitimate forms of expression such as satire, commentary, and news.
EFF and allied groups have formally urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to reconsider advancing the bill in its current form. They warn that the bill would replicate flaws similar to those seen in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown procedures, creating incentives for online platforms to remove content without adequate review to avoid facing fines that might reach $750,000 per disputed work.
Why it matters
The proposed federal ‘likeness’ right would be much broader than existing protections, potentially allowing the right to be licensed or transferred. This means individuals could lose control over the commercial use of their own face and voice, often unknowingly through contracts or platform terms of service. This shift could have widespread implications for privacy and personal autonomy, especially as AI technologies evolve.
Moreover, because platforms will bear the risk of large financial penalties should they fail to accurately discern whether content qualifies as protected speech like satire or commentary, they are incentivized to err on the side of caution by removing content first and asking questions later. This dynamic threatens to chill free speech and open discourse online.
What to watch next
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider and vote on the NO FAKES Act shortly. Observers should monitor whether lawmakers heed calls for narrowly tailored protections that address genuine privacy concerns without undermining free expression.
Legal experts and advocacy groups will also be watching for any amendments that limit the bill’s scope, introduce clearer safeguards for critical speech genres, or provide platforms with protections to reasonably manage content disputes without facing prohibitive penalties.