DEFIANCE Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 1837
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Passed Senate
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-13: Held at the desk.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-06T20:26:29Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 aims to protect individuals from harm caused by non-consensual intimate digital forgeries, such as deepfakes—realistic synthetic images or videos created using technology like artificial intelligence. It expands civil remedies for victims whose likenesses are used without permission in sexually explicit fake content, recognizing these forgeries as a form of image-based sexual abuse that can lead to privacy violations, emotional distress, harassment, and social isolation.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Outlines Congress's recognition of the widespread availability of deepfake technology, its potential to depict real people in fake intimate scenarios (e.g., superimposing faces on nude or sexual bodies), and the severe harms to victims, including mental health issues, fear of public exposure, and use in crimes like extortion or stalking. Labels such content as abusive regardless of disclaimers indicating it's fake.
- Definitions (Amendments to Existing Law):
- Identifiable individual: A person whose body or face (or other unique features) appears in the content and can be recognized.
- Intimate digital forgery: A fake visual depiction of intimate conduct (e.g., nudity or sexual activity) created or altered using software, AI, or other tech, which looks real to a reasonable viewer. This applies even if labeled as fake.
- Civil Actions:
- Victims can sue in federal court anyone who knowingly discloses an intimate image or digital forgery without consent, or who produces, possesses (with intent to disclose), discloses, or solicits such forgeries without consent.
- Applies to actions affecting interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., online sharing).
- Guardians can sue on behalf of minors, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased individuals.
- Excludes good-faith disclosures (e.g., for law enforcement or medical purposes).
- Relief and Remedies:
- Damages: Liquidated (fixed) amounts of $150,000 per violation, or $250,000 if linked to sexual assault, stalking, or harassment; or actual damages (including defendant's profits, with burden on defendant to deduct expenses).
- Other Relief: Court costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, and injunctions (court orders) to stop disclosure, delete content, or destroy forgeries.
- Privacy Protections: Courts can allow pseudonyms, seal records, redact personal info, or restrict access to sensitive materials during lawsuits.
- Procedural Rules:
- Statute of Limitations: 10 years from discovery of the violation or the victim's 18th birthday (whichever is later).
- No duplicative recovery if the same conduct leads to a criminal conviction under related federal law.
- Does not preempt (override) stronger state, tribal, or federal laws; allows for more protective measures.
- Severability and Construction: If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains valid. Does not affect intellectual property laws (e.g., copyrights).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (a law allowing civil suits for non-consensual sharing of real intimate images). Key expansions include:
- Adding digital forgeries to the scope, beyond just authentic photos/videos.
- Extending liability to production and possession (if intent to disclose exists), not just disclosure.
- Introducing higher liquidated damages and specific privacy safeguards.
- Updating definitions to cover "identifiable" victims and tech-generated fakes that appear authentic.
- Lengthening the time to file suits to 10 years, compared to shorter limits in the original law.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Empowers victims—especially women and public figures targeted in deepfakes—to seek justice and financial compensation, potentially reducing stigma and encouraging reporting. May deter creation/sharing of abusive content but could increase legal burdens for everyday users if content is misinterpreted.
- On Government Agencies: Minimal direct impact; federal courts handle cases, but no new enforcement roles for agencies like the FBI. Supports existing anti-harassment laws.
- On International Relations: Indirectly affects global tech platforms operating in the U.S., as interstate commerce clause enables jurisdiction over cross-border online activities. No explicit international provisions.
- Broader Society: Could reduce online abuse and "silencing effects" (victims withdrawing from public life), but may challenge free speech in gray areas of digital art or satire.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Victims (Identifiable Individuals): Primary beneficiaries, gaining stronger tools to protect privacy and recover losses from emotional, reputational, or financial harm.
- Creators, Distributors, and Possessors: Individuals or entities (e.g., app developers, social media users) who make or share deepfakes face civil liability, including high damages and injunctions.
- Online Platforms and Tech Companies: Indirectly impacted, as they may need to respond to takedown requests or face suits if facilitating non-consensual content.
- Legal Guardians and Families: Can act for vulnerable individuals (minors, deceased).
- State/Tribal Governments: Retain authority for their own laws, potentially leading to varied protections across jurisdictions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens victim rights under civil law without creating new crimes (focuses on remedies, not criminal penalties). The commerce clause basis ensures federal reach over online activities. Privacy orders align with protecting sensitive evidence, similar to defamation or revenge porn cases.
- Constitutional: Balances free speech (First Amendment) by targeting only non-consensual, intimate, harmful content—exempting good-faith or non-commercial uses. No broad censorship, but injunctions could raise prior restraint concerns if overapplied. Severability clause guards against partial invalidation.
- Political: Addresses emerging AI risks in a bipartisan way (passed Senate in 2026), signaling U.S. priority on tech accountability. May influence global standards for deepfake regulation, but avoids preempting state laws to respect federalism. Potential for debates on innovation vs. abuse in AI development.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Cosponsors (8)
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY], Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-13: Held at the desk.
- 2026-01-13: Received in the House.
- 2026-01-13: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 2026-01-13: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S143-147; text: CR S145-146)
- 2026-01-13: Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- 2026-01-13: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- 2026-01-13: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- 2025-05-21: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S3059-3060)
- 2025-05-21: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025 — issued 2026-01-13 — PDF (18 pages)
- Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025 — issued 2025-05-21 — PDF (16 pages)