Connecticut
Connecticut Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Connecticut's first deepfake-specific criminal law took effect in October 2025, making it a crime to distribute AI-generated intimate images without the subject's consent. A second law signed in May 2026 adds civil enforcement powers for victims and the Attorney General. Connecticut still has no election-deepfake statute and no statutory right of publicity, but federal law covers the remaining gaps.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Connecticut?
Connecticut law targets the distribution of deepfakes rather than their creation in isolation. Under Public Act 25-168, the offense is distributing a synthetically created intimate image without the subject's consent. Simply generating such an image without sharing it does not yet trigger criminal liability under Connecticut law, though it may still violate federal law if it involves a minor.
The three buckets that most state deepfake frameworks address are sexual and intimate deepfakes, election and political deepfakes, and AI voice cloning. Connecticut has enacted law only in the first bucket. The second bucket produced failed bills. The third bucket remains unaddressed by statute, leaving victims reliant on common law and the Tennessee ELVIS Act's growing influence as a model that Connecticut has not yet adopted.
That does not mean Connecticut is a permissive jurisdiction. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which applies in every state, independently makes publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes a federal crime. And Connecticut's new civil-enforcement framework gives victims a path to damages without waiting for a criminal prosecution.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Public Act 25-168 (enacted as part of the 2025 budget package, effective October 1, 2025) created the offense of "unlawful dissemination of an intimate synthetically created image." The law covers images that are intimate in nature and artificially created or modified to depict an identifiable person. The elements all have to be met: the sender intentionally disseminates the image, does so without the subject's consent, knows the image is synthetically created and intends a person who views it to be deceived into believing it is an actual depiction of that person, and the subject suffers harm as a result. That intent-to-deceive element does real work, because an image shared with a visible AI label or in an openly fictional context would not on its face satisfy it.

Penalties scale with how broadly the image is distributed and whether the offender intended harm. Sharing with a single person is a Class D misdemeanor, rising to a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in prison) if the offender acquired or created the image intending to harm the victim. Distributing to multiple people via an internet or telecommunications service is a Class C misdemeanor, rising to a Class D felony carrying up to five years in prison when that same intent to harm is present.
The 2026 civil-enforcement law (HB 5312, signed May 26, 2026 as Public Act 26-55, effective October 1, 2026) significantly expands what victims can do beyond reporting to police. Victims may bring a private right of action in state court against a person who knowingly disseminated the image with intent to harm them. The Attorney General may petition the Superior Court for civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day against platforms that fail to remove flagged content within 48 hours.
For minors, Connecticut's existing CSAM statutes (CGS 53a-196d) use broad "visual depiction" language that state prosecutors have applied to computer-generated material. Federal law independently covers AI-generated child sexual abuse material under (8)(B), which reaches photorealistic computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real child regardless of whether any actual child was depicted.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Connecticut has no enacted election-deepfake law as of mid-2026. H 6846 (2025 session) would have prohibited distributing "deceptive synthetic media" within 90 days preceding an election and received a favorable committee report. It failed to advance further before adjournment.
The First Amendment concerns that shadowed this bill were not theoretical. A California election-deepfake law (AB 2839) was enjoined by a federal court in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds, illustrating the genuine constitutional risk for laws that sweep too broadly into political speech. Connecticut's failure to pass H 6846 leaves a real gap for the 2026 election cycle.
Absent a state law, political deepfakes in Connecticut are governed primarily by existing state election-fraud statutes and federal law, neither of which specifically addresses synthetic media. Voters who encounter deceptive AI-generated content about candidates should report it to the Connecticut Secretary of the State's office.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Connecticut has no statutory right of publicity and no AI-specific voice cloning law. That means a Connecticut resident whose voice is cloned by AI without consent cannot point to a dedicated state statute the way a Tennessee artist can under the ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101, effective July 1, 2024), which was the first U.S. law to extend right-of-publicity protection expressly to AI voice simulations.
Connecticut residents are not without any recourse. The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA, CGS 42-110b) prohibits deceptive or unfair acts in trade or commerce. When a business uses someone's AI-cloned voice in advertising or a commercial product without permission, CUTPA may provide a civil remedy, though it was not designed with voice cloning in mind. Common law appropriation-of-likeness torts may also apply, but they are narrow and inconsistently applied.
The general AI law Connecticut passed in 2026, Senate Bill 5 (signed June 2, 2026), requires large generative AI providers with more than one million monthly users to embed provenance data in any audio, image, or video they generate, effective October 1, 2026. That disclosure requirement does not restrict voice cloning itself but does require AI-generated audio to carry machine-readable origin markers, which could aid enforcement of other laws.
For commercial voice misuse, the federal FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) covers AI voice fraud used to impersonate government entities or businesses, and the FTC Act Section 5 reaches other deceptive AI voice schemes.
Federal Law That Applies in Connecticut
Three federal laws are already in effect and apply to Connecticut residents regardless of any gap in state law.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the most directly relevant. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of real people, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes described as "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison for adult victims and three years when a minor is depicted. Platforms must remove content flagged by victims within 48 hours; the FTC enforces that removal obligation.
The FCC AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) makes AI-generated voices in robocalls "artificial" under the TCPA (), so AI voice-clone calls made to phone numbers without prior express consent are already illegal federally. This directly addresses one of the most common AI voice-cloning harms consumers face.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)) covers AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from depictions of real minors, closing any state-law gap for that category.
Two federal bills are proposed but not enacted. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages up to $150,000. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI voice and likeness replicas. The DEFIANCE Act passed the Senate on January 13, 2026 and awaits House action; the NO FAKES Act has not passed either chamber. As of June 2026 both remain pending legislation, not law.
Connecticut AI Laws covers the broader regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence in the state, including automated employment decisions, companion chatbot rules, and the SB 5 provenance framework. This page focuses specifically on deepfake and synthetic media criminal and civil liability.
What Victims Can Do
A Connecticut victim of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes now has multiple enforcement paths running in parallel.
On the criminal side, victims can report to local police or the Connecticut State Police. Public Act 25-168 gives prosecutors a specific charge to file. If the content was also distributed on a platform with national reach, federal prosecutors can use the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
On the civil side, the 2026 HB 5312 law gives victims, starting October 1, 2026, a direct private right of action against a person who knowingly shared the content with intent to harm. Victims may also contact the Connecticut Attorney General's office, which can pursue daily fines against platforms that refuse to remove the content.
For platform takedowns, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour removal rule applies to any platform covered by the law. Victims can submit a notice to the platform directly; the platform must act within 48 hours or face FTC enforcement. Platforms like Meta, Google, and major social networks have also established their own non-consensual intimate image (NCII) reporting portals, which often operate faster than the legal process.
For AI voice cloning misuse in a commercial context, a complaint to the FTC (for government/business impersonation via AI voice under the FTC Impersonation Rule) or to the Connecticut Attorney General under CUTPA may be the most viable route in the absence of a dedicated state statute.
Connecticut Recording Laws explain the state's consent rules for audio and video capture, which remain a separate but related layer of privacy protection.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing synthetic intimate image to one person | Public Act 25-168 (CGS Ch. 952) | Class D misdemeanor; Class A misdemeanor (up to one year) with intent to harm |
| Distributing synthetic intimate image via internet (multiple recipients) | Public Act 25-168 (CGS Ch. 952) | Class C misdemeanor; Class D felony (up to 5 years) with intent to harm |
| Platform refusing to remove flagged content within 48 hours | TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12); CT Public Act 26-55 | FTC civil enforcement; up to $25k/day (state AG, eff. Oct. 2026) |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 for minors) |
| AI voice cloning in illegal robocall | FCC 24-17 / TCPA | FTC/FCC civil fines; private TCPA claim |
| AI-generated CSAM (minors) | 18 U.S.C. 2256 / CGS 53a-196d | Federal felony (15+ years); state felony |

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Connecticut deepfake laws, not legal advice. AI and deepfake law is one of the fastest-moving areas of legislation: new bills are introduced every session, federal law changed significantly in 2025, and judicial interpretations continue to evolve. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a legal claim in this area, consult a licensed Connecticut attorney for advice specific to your situation.
More Connecticut Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Connecticut?
Connecticut law specifically prohibits distributing a synthetically created intimate image of someone without their consent under Public Act 25-168 (effective October 1, 2025), where the sender knows the image is synthetically created, intends viewers to be deceived into believing it is real, and the subject is harmed. Simply generating such an image without sharing it is not currently a distinct crime under state law, though federal law applies if a minor is depicted. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act also independently criminalizes publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Connecticut?
Yes. Public Act 25-168 makes it a crime to distribute AI-generated or synthetically altered intimate images of a real person without their consent, when the sender knows the image is synthetically created, intends a viewer to be deceived into believing it is an actual depiction of that person, and the subject suffers harm. Sharing with one person is a Class D misdemeanor, or a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year) if the image was created or acquired with intent to harm. Posting to the internet or distributing to multiple people via a telecommunications service is a Class C misdemeanor, or a Class D felony carrying up to 5 years in prison with that intent to harm.
Can I sue someone in Connecticut for creating a deepfake of me?
Yes, for intimate deepfakes. Connecticut's 2026 civil-enforcement law (HB 5312, effective October 1, 2026) gives you a private right of action in state court against someone who knowingly distributed a nonconsensual synthetic intimate image of you with intent to harm. You can also contact the Connecticut Attorney General's office, which can pursue platforms civilly. For non-intimate deepfakes, common law privacy torts may apply but there is no dedicated statutory cause of action.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Connecticut?
There is no Connecticut statute specifically criminalizing AI voice cloning. Common law privacy torts and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA, CGS 42-110b) may provide civil remedies for commercial misuse of a cloned voice. Federally, the FTC Impersonation Rule covers AI voice cloning used to impersonate government or business entities, and the TCPA bars AI-voice robocalls without prior consent.
Does Connecticut have an election deepfake law?
No. Connecticut's H 6846 (2025), which would have banned deceptive synthetic election media within 90 days of a vote, failed before adjournment. No election deepfake law has been enacted in Connecticut through mid-2026. Federal election law and existing state election-fraud statutes apply, but neither specifically addresses AI-generated synthetic media.
What does the TAKE IT DOWN Act do for Connecticut victims?
The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is now in effect nationwide, including Connecticut. It 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 a victim's notice. The FTC enforces the removal obligation. This law applies on top of Connecticut's own state criminal law.
Is the DEFIANCE Act or the NO FAKES Act law in Connecticut?
No. Both are proposed federal bills that remain pending as of June 2026. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591) would establish a federal right of publicity covering AI voice and likeness replicas. The DEFIANCE Act passed the Senate in January 2026 but has not passed the House; the NO FAKES Act has not passed either chamber. Neither is currently law.
What is Connecticut's right of publicity law?
Connecticut has no statutory right of publicity. Unlike states such as Tennessee (which enacted the ELVIS Act in 2024 to protect voices from AI cloning) or California (with its broad celebrity rights statute), Connecticut relies on common law appropriation torts and CUTPA for commercial likeness misuse. There is no AI-specific voice cloning protection in Connecticut state law.
Updates
Corrected the description of Connecticut's synthetic intimate image crime to include the statutory requirement that the sender intend viewers to be deceived into believing the image is real, and removed an unsupported statement that the offense can be charged as a family violence crime.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
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) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) held the child pornography definitions in 2256(8)(B) and (8)(D), reaching virtual and pandered images, overbroad under the First Amendment. United States v. Williams (2008) construed sexually explicit conduct in 2256(2)(A), reading simulated to require explicit portrayal of the act.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted a chat-room link to photos of real children and was convicted of pandering. Upholding that ban, the Court read section 2256(2)(A)'s definition of sexually explicit conduct as tracking the one approved in Ferber, and said material must in fact meet it.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓An adult-entertainment trade group, a nudist-lifestyle publisher, a painter and a photographer challenged the CPPA. The Court held sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D), reaching images that only appear to be of minors or are pandered that way, overbroad and unconstitutional.
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)✓A distributor sold tapes of an actress filmed before she turned 18. Besides reading 'knowingly' in section 2252 to reach the performer's age, the Court rejected as insubstantial the claim that section 2256 is vague and overbroad for setting majority at 18 and using 'lascivious.'
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), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 37 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) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under Section 227(a)(1), equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce the numbers it dials. Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc. (2017) applied the prior express consent defense to promotional texts.
Leading cases:
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153)✓A marketing firm hired by the Navy had a subcontractor text a recruiting message to 100,000 phones, reaching a man who never consented; the Supreme Court held a contractor gets no derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA suit when it violates the Act and the Navy's orders.
- Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388)✓An insured let an advertiser send 18,879 unsolicited fax ads, drawing a $2 million TCPA class judgment; the Third Circuit read the TCPA as protecting seclusion, not secrecy, so the faxes were no covered 'advertising injury' and the insurer need not pay the judgment.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)✓Facebook texted login alerts to a man who had no account and never gave it his number; the Supreme Court held a device is an autodialer under 227(a)(1) only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, excluding Facebook's system.
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, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024)
§ 47-25-1101Short titleIn forcecited in 50 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024.” History Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 1; 2024, ch. 588, § 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 47-25-1101 et seq. as the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984. Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (1996) applied a one-year limitations period because the Act supplies none, and STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (1987) said nothing in the Act limits publicity rights vested before its effective date.
Leading cases:
- Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497)✓A widow sued her late husband's law firm under the Personal Rights Protection Act to stop its use of his surname; the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction on partnership and name-assignment grounds, and the majority opinion never applied the Act's own provisions.
- STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)✓Two nonprofits fought over using Elvis Presley's name in their corporate names; the court rested his descendible right of publicity on Tennessee common law rather than the Personal Rights Protection Act, and said nothing in the Act limits rights vested before its effective date.
- State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)“…General Assembly undertook to do so in 1984 when it enacted Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq. which is known as “The Person…”
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
- Public Act 25-168, Sec. 261 (HB 7287, 2025): Unlawful Dissemination of an Intimate Synthetically Created Image, Connecticut General Assembly (eff. Oct. 1, 2025)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- HB 5312, Public Act 26-55: An Act Establishing a Civil Action for the Attorney General and Private Right of Action for Victims of Unlawful Dissemination of a Synthetically Created Intimate Image, Connecticut General Assembly (signed May 26, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress), signed May 19, 2025(congress.gov).gov
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17: AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Declared Artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B): Federal definition of child pornography covering computer-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003), via Cornell LII(law.cornell.edu)
- Connecticut Attorney General Press Release: Legislation Strengthening Enforcement Against Deepfake Digital Sexual Assault (May 2026)(portal.ct.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 CFR Part 461 (eff. April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov