DEFIANCE Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3562
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-07T14:49:15Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 aims to expand civil remedies for victims of non-consensual disclosure or creation of intimate images, specifically by including "intimate digital forgeries" (such as deepfakes). These are realistic synthetic images or videos created using technology like AI that depict someone in sexually explicit or nude situations without their consent. The bill recognizes deepfakes as a form of image-based sexual abuse that causes severe emotional, social, and psychological harm, and seeks to empower victims to seek legal relief.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Introduces "identifiable individual" as someone recognizable in an image or video by their face, likeness, or other features (e.g., a birthmark).
- Defines "intimate digital forgery" as a fake visual depiction of an identifiable person in an intimate context (e.g., nude or sexually explicit) created or altered using software, AI, or other tech. It remains a forgery even if labeled as fake or disclosed in a context suggesting it's not real.
- Civil Actions: Victims (identifiable individuals) can sue in federal court for:
- Non-consensual disclosure of real intimate images or digital forgeries.
- Knowing production, possession with intent to disclose, disclosure, or solicitation/receipt of digital forgeries.
- Knowing production of a digital forgery that harms or is likely to harm the victim.
- Actions must involve or affect interstate/foreign commerce (e.g., using the internet or mail).
- Guardians can sue on behalf of minors, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased individuals.
- Relief Available:
- Liquidated damages: $150,000 per violation, or $250,000 if linked to sexual assault, stalking, or harassment.
- Actual damages, including the defendant's profits (plaintiff proves gross revenue; defendant must prove deductions).
- Attorney fees, litigation costs, punitive damages, and court orders (e.g., injunctions to delete or stop sharing content).
- Privacy protections: Courts can allow pseudonyms, seal filings, redact personal info, or restrict discovery of sensitive materials.
- Limitations and Safeguards:
- 10-year statute of limitations from discovery of the violation or the victim's 18th birthday (whichever is later).
- No duplicative recovery if the defendant is already convicted under related federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 2255).
- Does not preempt stronger state or tribal laws; federal law sets a minimum standard.
- Severability and Construction: If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect. The act does not affect intellectual property laws.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (known as the SHIELD Act), which previously allowed civil suits only for non-consensual sharing of real intimate images. Key expansions include:
- Adding digital forgeries to the scope, covering creation, possession, and solicitation—not just disclosure.
- Broadening "intimate visual depiction" to explicitly include deepfakes depicting identifiable people in sexually explicit conduct.
- Increasing damages (from unspecified amounts to fixed liquidated sums) and adding equitable remedies like injunctions.
- Extending the statute of limitations (previously shorter or undefined) and enhancing victim privacy in court.
- Clarifying that consent must be "competent" (e.g., informed and voluntary) and removing outdated provisions (e.g., on incapacity).
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Provides stronger tools for victims to combat deepfake abuse, potentially reducing isolation, stigma, and mental health issues like anxiety or depression. It may deter harassers by imposing financial penalties, but victims might still face challenges identifying creators or removing widespread online content.
- On Government Agencies: Increases workload for federal courts handling civil suits, but no direct mandates or funding for agencies like the DOJ or FBI. Could indirectly support enforcement of related criminal laws.
- On International Relations: Applies to activities affecting U.S. interstate/foreign commerce, potentially allowing suits against foreign actors using U.S.-based platforms (e.g., internet services). This might strain relations with countries where deepfake tech is prevalent, but promotes global norms against non-consensual digital abuse.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Victims: Primarily individuals (often women or public figures) harmed by non-consensual deepfakes or intimate images, including minors and vulnerable groups facing harassment, extortion, or violence.
- Perpetrators: Creators, distributors, or possessors of such content, who face civil liability and potential financial ruin.
- Tech Industry: Developers of AI/software tools for image manipulation may see indirect effects through increased scrutiny, though the bill targets misuse rather than tools themselves.
- Legal System: Federal courts, attorneys, and guardians, who will manage more cases with privacy-focused procedures.
- Platforms and Online Services: Social media or app providers could be drawn into lawsuits if facilitating disclosure, encouraging better content moderation.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens federal civil remedies for emerging tech harms, treating deepfakes as akin to revenge porn. It complements criminal laws without overlapping recoveries, and its non-preemptive stance allows states/tribes to build on it, potentially leading to a patchwork of protections.
- Constitutional: Raises free speech concerns under the First Amendment, as it regulates expressive content (e.g., satirical deepfakes), but focuses narrowly on non-consensual intimate depictions with intent to harm, likely passing scrutiny as unprotected speech (e.g., like obscenity or defamation). Privacy protections align with due process by shielding victims.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (Democrats and Republicans) signals broad consensus on addressing AI-driven abuse. It highlights Congress's role in adapting laws to technology, but could spark debates on overreach into digital expression or enforcement feasibility in a global online environment.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]
Cosponsors (55)
Rep. Lee, Laurel M. [R-FL-15], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Edwards, Chuck [R-NC-11], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15], Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Grijalva, Adelita S. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23], Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4], Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Bresnahan, Robert P. [R-PA-8], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1] and 5 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-05-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-05-21: Introduced in House
- 2025-05-21: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025 — issued 2025-05-21 — PDF (16 pages)