Arizona
Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Arizona has multiple enacted laws targeting deepfakes and AI-generated media. Non-consensual intimate deepfakes are a criminal offense under ARS 13-1425, AI voice impersonation is a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-2006, AI-generated child exploitation imagery is explicitly criminalized under ARS 13-3551, and election deepfakes create civil liability under ARS 16-1023.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Arizona?
Yes, depending on the type of deepfake, Arizona law imposes criminal or civil liability. The state has taken a targeted approach, passing laws in three distinct areas: sexual and intimate deepfakes, election deepfakes, and AI voice impersonation. General deepfakes outside these categories, such as a realistic fake video of a private citizen in a non-sexual, non-electoral context, are not yet covered by a dedicated Arizona statute, though common law claims for defamation or false light may apply.
Arizona has notably avoided a single comprehensive deepfake law in favor of specific, sector-by-sector legislation. This approach has drawn criticism from lawmakers who argue the piecemeal framework leaves gaps, particularly for public figures targeted by deepfakes that fall outside the election or intimate-image categories.
For more on Arizona's broader artificial intelligence regulatory landscape, including healthcare AI rules and the Attorney General's investigation into AI-generated child imagery, see Arizona AI Laws.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Arizona's primary law covering sexual deepfakes is ARS 13-1425, the state's non-consensual intimate image (NCII) statute. The law covers a category it calls "realistic pictorial representations," defined as images "created or modified to reasonably appear to be an actual image of an identifiable person depicted in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities that did not actually occur." That definition captures AI-generated intimate deepfakes without naming the technology directly.
A violation requires that the disclosure was intended to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the victim. A reasonable expectation of privacy is required for real images, but SB 1462 (signed May 2, 2025) provides that this element does not apply to a realistic pictorial representation unless the depicted person created or modified the image. The statute does not currently include a standalone civil right of action for victims; remedies run through the criminal system.
Penalties Under ARS 13-1425
Penalties depend on whether the image is real or AI-generated. Threatening to share an intimate deepfake, or actually sharing a realistic pictorial representation, is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The base offense of disclosing a real (non-deepfake) intimate image without consent is a Class 5 felony, and disclosure of a real image via email, mobile device, tablet, or other electronic means is a Class 4 felony.
The Class 1 misdemeanor tier for realistic pictorial representations is lower than the Class 5 felony for real intimate images. This sentencing inversion has been noted by advocates as an anomaly in the statute.
AI-Generated Child Sexual Exploitation Material
Arizona explicitly criminalizes AI-generated child sexual abuse material under ARS 13-3551, as amended by HB 2678 (signed May 12, 2025). The amendment updated the definition of "visual depiction" to include images "modified by means of computer software, artificial intelligence or other digital editing tools." It also expanded the definition of "minor" to cover depictions "indistinguishable from an actual minor," meaning a viewer would reasonably conclude the depiction shows a real child.
AI-generated child exploitation imagery meeting this standard is treated as a dangerous crime against children when the apparent age is under 15. Federal law under (8)(B) also covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors, providing a parallel layer of liability regardless of state coverage.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Arizona enacted two separate laws covering deepfakes in the political context. Together they create both a civil cause of action and a disclosure requirement, but they fall short of criminal punishment for election deepfakes.
ARS 16-1023: Digital Impersonation Civil Action
ARS 16-1023 (enacted by HB 2394, signed May 21, 2024) allows any Arizona citizen, including political candidates, to bring a civil action for digital impersonation. To qualify, the synthetic media must have been published without the person's consent, and either the publisher must have failed to reasonably convey that the media was a digital impersonation or it must not have been obvious to a reasonable person that the media was a digital impersonation.
For preliminary relief, a plaintiff must prove the impersonation plus at least one aggravating factor: an election within 180 days involving the candidate, sexual content, depiction of a crime, or serious harm to reputation or employment. Courts must act on preliminary relief requests within two business days.
Enhanced remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary damages, require a higher bar: the impersonation must depict a sexual act or the person's nudity in a way that appeals to prurient interests and offends community standards, the plaintiff must not have been a public figure (including a limited public figure) when the claim accrued, and the publisher must have known the content was a digital impersonation or failed to take corrective action within 21 days of learning that it was fake. This 21-day correction window has drawn criticism as a significant loophole, since a deepfake can circulate for three weeks after the publisher learns it is fake without triggering liability.
Notably, no criminal penalties apply under ARS 16-1023. A 2025 article in the Arizona Capitol Times reported that a deepfake video of Governor Hobbs that circulated in October 2025 violated neither this statute nor ARS 16-1024, illustrating the practical limits of the current framework.
ARS 16-1024: Disclosure Requirement
ARS 16-1024 separately requires creators or distributors of AI-generated synthetic media depicting candidates to include "a clear and conspicuous disclosure that conveys to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence." This requirement applies within 90 days before a scheduled election. Violations carry a $10/day fine for the first 15 days, then $25/day thereafter (ARS 16-937(B)) for each day the undisclosed content remains distributed, a penalty widely viewed as inadequate deterrence.
First Amendment Considerations
Election deepfake laws carry ongoing First Amendment risk. A federal court enjoined portions of California's election deepfake law in August 2025 on free speech grounds. Arizona's civil enforcement approach, combined with its parody and satire exemptions, reduces but does not eliminate that risk. Any enforcement under ARS 16-1023 or 16-1024 could face First Amendment challenges in court.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Arizona does not have a comprehensive statutory right of publicity. The state relies on common law for name and likeness claims, which protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation but does not specifically address AI voice cloning.
SB 1295: AI Voice Fraud (ARS 13-2006)
The most significant Arizona law for voice cloning is SB 1295, signed May 13, 2025, which amended ARS 13-2006 (criminal impersonation) to add a new offense: using a computer-generated voice recording, image, or video of another person with intent to defraud. This offense is classified as a Class 5 felony, one level more serious than the Class 6 felony for traditional criminal impersonation.
The law includes protected-speech carve-outs for comedy, parody, artistic expression, and criticism, as well as content clearly marked as digitally manipulated. Outside of fraud or harassment, purely commercial use of an AI voice clone may not fall under this statute, since the criminal offense requires fraudulent intent.
For comparison, Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101, eff. July 1, 2024) is the national archetype for AI voice protection: it extends the right of publicity to voice simulations and applies even without fraudulent intent, covering commercial use directly. Arizona has not enacted equivalent right-of-publicity legislation.
Commercial Exploitation
For purely commercial voice cloning without fraudulent intent, Arizona victims currently rely on common law right of publicity, which is less predictable than a statutory framework. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for AI digital replicas, but it has not passed either chamber as of June 2026 and should not be treated as current law.
For Arizona data privacy and AI issues beyond voice cloning, see Arizona Data Privacy Laws.
Federal Law That Applies in Arizona
Federal law provides important protections that supplement and in some cases exceed Arizona's state statutes.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison (three for images involving minors). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the platform-removal obligation. This federal law runs alongside ARS 13-1425 and may provide stronger remedies in cases where state penalties seem inadequate.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls constitute "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). Calls using AI voice clones to residential phones without prior express consent are therefore illegal nationwide. This rule was triggered by a fake robocall imitating President Biden's voice during the New Hampshire primary.
The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461), effective April 1, 2024, prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses, including through AI voice cloning. An individual-impersonation extension remains an unfinalized proposed rulemaking as of June 2026.
Federal child exploitation law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors, filling any state-law gaps.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress), which would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims, passed the Senate on January 13, 2026 and remains pending in the House. It is not law. The earlier 118th-Congress version passed the Senate but died in the House. For background on the bill, see our coverage of the DEFIANCE Act.
What Victims Can Do
If you are an Arizona victim of a deepfake, several avenues are available depending on the type of content.
For intimate image deepfakes, you can report the offense to local law enforcement for prosecution under ARS 13-1425. For platform removal, the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires participating platforms to remove flagged intimate visual depictions within 48 hours of notice; the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates the intake portal at TakeItDown.NCMEC.org. File a report with the platform directly under its own terms of service as a parallel step.
For election deepfakes, you can file a civil action under ARS 16-1023 in state court. Contact an attorney quickly because the statute requires courts to act on preliminary relief within two business days. For the disclosure violation, you can report to the Arizona Secretary of State.
For AI voice fraud or impersonation used to defraud you, report to the Arizona Attorney General's office and local law enforcement. SB 1295 added this as a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-2006, so local prosecutors can charge it criminally.
For non-criminal deepfake harms (reputation damage, commercial exploitation), consult a civil attorney about defamation, false light, or common law right of publicity claims. These are fact-specific and require legal advice.
For more information on Arizona recording and privacy law, see Arizona Recording Laws.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Sharing intimate deepfake (realistic pictorial representation) | ARS 13-1425(C)(2) | Class 1 misdemeanor |
| Sharing real intimate image without consent | ARS 13-1425(C) | Class 5 felony (Class 4 if by electronic means) |
| AI voice/image impersonation to defraud | ARS 13-2006(A)(4) (SB 1295) | Class 5 felony |
| AI-generated child exploitation material (indistinguishable) | ARS 13-3551 et seq. (HB 2678) | Dangerous crime against children |
| Election deepfake (digital impersonation, civil) | ARS 16-1023 | Injunctive relief + damages |
| Election deepfake (no AI disclosure label) | ARS 16-1024 | $10/day civil fine (escalating to $25/day after 15 days per ARS 16-937(B)) |
| Intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (PL 119-12) | Up to 2 years federal prison |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Arizona deepfake and AI laws, not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly. If you have a specific legal situation, consult a licensed Arizona attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
More Arizona Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Arizona?
It depends on the content and purpose. Distributing a deepfake intimate image is a criminal offense under ARS 13-1425, charged as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Using an AI voice or image to impersonate someone for fraud is a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-2006. Election deepfakes create civil liability under ARS 16-1023. Deepfakes outside these categories, such as a realistic fake video of a private person in a non-sexual, non-electoral context, are not directly covered by an Arizona-specific statute, though common law defamation or false light claims may apply.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Arizona?
Yes, in limited circumstances. ARS 16-1023 creates an explicit civil cause of action for digital impersonation of candidates and citizens in the election context. Enhanced remedies (injunctive relief and damages) require showing the impersonation depicted a sexual act or nudity meeting Arizona's obscenity-like standard, that you were not a public figure when the claim arose, and that the publisher knew the content was fake and failed to correct it within 21 days. For intimate image deepfakes, ARS 13-1425 is a criminal statute without an explicit private civil right of action, but you may have common law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy. Consult an attorney for your specific situation.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Arizona?
Yes. Under ARS 13-1425, distributing a 'realistic pictorial representation' without consent is a crime. Both sharing such an image and threatening to share it are Class 1 misdemeanors; the Class 4 felony tier for electronic disclosure applies only to real intimate images. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 2025) also makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deepfakes and requires platforms to remove them within 48 hours of victim notice.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Arizona?
Using an AI voice clone to impersonate someone for fraudulent purposes is a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-2006 (amended by SB 1295, signed May 2025). Arizona does not have a right-of-publicity statute, so purely commercial voice cloning without fraudulent intent falls under less certain common law protections. The FCC has also ruled that AI voice robocalls are illegal nationwide without prior consent under the TCPA.
What is Arizona's election deepfake law?
Arizona has two overlapping laws. ARS 16-1023 (HB 2394, 2024) allows candidates and citizens to sue for digital impersonation in a civil court; preliminary relief is available when an election is within 180 days. ARS 16-1024 requires AI-generated political media to carry a disclosure label within 90 days of an election, with a $10/day fine for the first 15 days, then $25/day thereafter (ARS 16-937(B)) for violations. Neither law imposes criminal penalties, and critics note the 21-day correction window in ARS 16-1023 is a significant gap.
Does the TAKE IT DOWN Act help Arizona deepfake victims?
Yes. Signed May 19, 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act is a federal law that makes publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes a federal crime (up to 2 years, 3 for minors) and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice. It applies nationwide regardless of state law and supplements Arizona's ARS 13-1425 protections. The intake portal is operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at TakeItDown.NCMEC.org.
Is AI-generated child sexual abuse material illegal in Arizona?
Yes. HB 2678 (signed May 12, 2025) amended ARS 13-3551 to explicitly cover AI-generated and digitally manipulated child exploitation imagery that is indistinguishable from a real minor. Such material is treated as a dangerous crime against children when the depicted person appears under age 15. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256 independently covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors.
What should I do if I am a victim of a deepfake in Arizona?
For intimate image deepfakes: report to local police (ARS 13-1425 felony), and request platform removal using the TAKE IT DOWN Act portal at TakeItDown.NCMEC.org. For election deepfakes: consult an attorney immediately (courts must rule on preliminary relief within 2 business days under ARS 16-1023). For AI voice fraud: report to the Arizona Attorney General and local law enforcement (Class 5 felony under ARS 13-2006). For other harms, consult an attorney about common law civil claims.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against current primary sources.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Updated NO FAKES Act federal bill citation to S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026") and current Senate Judiciary Committee status.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected two misstatements of ARS 16-1023: the civil-action standard turns on whether the impersonation was obviously a digital fake (not on satire/parody, which is a different statute's exemption), and enhanced remedies require three elements together (sexual/nudity content, plaintiff not a public figure, and the knowledge/21-day element), not the knowledge element alone.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 8 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 14 (SEXUAL OFFENSES)
§ 13-1425Unlawful disclosure of images depicting states of nudity or specific sexual activities; classification; definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all of the following apply: 1. The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities. 2. The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Evidence that a person has sent an image to another person using an electronic device does not, on its own, remove the person's reasonable expectation of privacy for that image. Unless the realistic pictorial representation is created or modified by the depicted person, this paragraph does not apply to an image that is a realistic pictorial representation. 3. The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person. B. This section does not apply to any of the following: 1. The reporting of unlawful conduct. 2. Lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, legal proceedings or medical treatment. 3. Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-04 · Read the full section at azleg.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024
Leading cases: Arce v. Honeywell International Incorporated (District Court, D. Arizona 2024)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arizona Surreptitious Recording & Voyeurism Laws: ARS 13-3019 Penalties (2026)
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 20 (FORGERY AND RELATED OFFENSES)
§ 13-2006Criminal impersonation; classificationIn force
A. A person commits criminal impersonation by: 1. Assuming a false identity with the intent to defraud another; or 2. Pretending to be a representative of some person or organization with the intent to defraud; or 3. Pretending to be, or assuming a false identity of, an employee or a representative of some person or organization with the intent to induce another person to provide or allow access to property. This paragraph does not apply to peace officers in the performance of their duties; or 4. Using a computer-generated voice recording, image or video of another person with the intent to defraud other persons. For the purposes of this paragraph, "defraud" means to make a false representation or material omission to deceive another person to gain a benefit. B. For the purposes of this section, comedy, parody, artistic expression, criticism or circumstances where it is clear to a reasonable listener or viewer that the recording, image or video has been digitally manipulated are not fraudulent. C.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-04 · Read the full section at azleg.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2019
Leading cases: State v. Romero-Gomez (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2019) · Graciela Hernandez De Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2014, 770 F.3d 823) · Aaron Ludwig v. State of Arizona (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2019)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 35.1 (SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN)
§ 13-3551DefinitionsIn force
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Advertising" or "advertisement" means any message in any medium that offers or solicits any person to engage in sexual conduct in this state. 2. "Communication service provider" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-3001. 3. "Computer" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-2301, subsection E. 4. "Computer system" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-2301, subsection E. 5. "Exploitive exhibition" means the actual or simulated exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal areas of any person for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. 6. "Indistinguishable" means a visual depiction such that a person viewing the depiction would reasonably conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor. 7. "Minor": (a) Means a person or persons who were under eighteen years of age at the time a visual depiction was created, adapted or modified. (b) Includes a visual depiction that is indistinguishable from an actual minor. 8. "Network" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-2301, subsection E. 9.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-04 · Read the full section at azleg.gov
Cited in 36 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: State v. Berger (Arizona Supreme Court 2006, 212 Ariz. 473) · State v. Hazlett (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2003, 205 Ariz. 523) · State v. Gates (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1994, 182 Ariz. 459)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 (Elections and Electors), Chapter 7 (PENAL PROVISIONS), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 16-1023Digital impersonation of candidate or other person; relief; applicability; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. A candidate for public office or political party office who will appear on the ballot in this state or any citizen of this state may bring an action for digital impersonation within two years after the date that the person knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that a digital impersonation of the person who is bringing the action was published. The sole remedy on this cause of action is preliminary and permanent declaratory relief except as otherwise expressly provided by this section. To prevail on an action prescribed by this section, a plaintiff must prove all of the following: 1. That a digital impersonation of the person was published to one or more other persons without the person's consent. 2. That at the time of publication either of the following applies: (a) The publisher did not reasonably convey to the persons to whom the publication was made that the recording or image was a digital impersonation or that its authenticity was disputed. (b) It would not be obvious to a reasonable person that the recording or image was a digital impersonation. B.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-04 · Read the full section at azleg.gov
§ 16-1024Deepfakes; candidates; exemptions; civil liability; definitionsIn force
A. Within ninety days before an election at which a candidate for elected office will appear on the ballot, a person that acts as a creator shall not create and distribute a synthetic media message that the person knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of that candidate who is on that ballot unless the synthetic media message includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure that conveys to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence. B. This section does not apply to: 1. Media that constitutes satire or parody. 2. An interactive computer service as defined in 47 United States Code section 230. C. A person who fails to make the disclosure required under this section is liable for the civil penalty prescribed by section 16-937, subsection B, for each day that they distribute the deceptive and fraudulent deepfake without such disclosure. D. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Creator": (a) Means any person that uses artificial intelligence or other digital technology to generate synthetic media. (b) Does not include the provider of any technology used in the creation of synthetic media. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-04 · Read the full section at azleg.gov
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 53 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term— “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; For purposes of subsection 8(B) 1 So in original. Probably should be “(8)(B)”.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285) · Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234) · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Alabama Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 36 of our articles
As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1 So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153) · Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388) · Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, TCPA Explained: Robocall, Text, and Telemarketing Law (2026), TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 47-25-1101Short title.In forcecited in 47 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984.”
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2021-05-21 · Read the full section at archive.org
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
Leading cases: Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497) · STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89) · State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Film, Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- ARS 13-1425 - Unlawful disclosure of images depicting states of nudity or specific sexual activities(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 16-1023 - Digital impersonation of candidate or other person; relief; definitions(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 16-1024 - Deepfakes; candidates; exemptions; civil liability; definitions(azleg.gov).gov
- HB 2678 - Chapter 174 (57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session) - ARS 13-3551 AI-CSAM amendment(azleg.gov).gov
- SB 1295 - Chapter 184 (57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session) - ARS 13-2006 AI voice fraud amendment(azleg.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act - Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress)(congress.gov).gov
- FCC 24-17 - FCC Makes AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Illegal(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256 - Federal CSAM definitions including AI-generated images(law.cornell.edu)