District of Columbia Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)

The District of Columbia does not yet have a statute that explicitly targets AI-generated deepfakes. D.C. Code s. 22-3052 prohibits nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images but never mentions AI or synthetic content, leaving prosecutors to argue that the statute covers deepfakes by implication. A pending bill, B26-0524 (introduced December 2025), would create an explicit AI-NCII offense. Until that measure passes, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act carries most of the practical weight for DC victims of intimate deepfakes.

Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in DC?

The short answer is: it depends on what the deepfake depicts and how it is used. DC law currently addresses intimate-image disclosure under its criminal code, but the statutes were written before AI image generation existed and do not mention synthetic or AI-altered content by name.

There is no enacted DC statute covering election deepfakes or AI voice cloning as of June 2026. And unlike roughly half the states, DC has no right-of-publicity law that an entertainer or public figure could invoke against an unauthorized AI replica of their voice or face.

The three standard deepfake buckets break down as follows for the District. Sexual and intimate deepfakes fall under the existing NCII statutes by possible implication, and will be covered explicitly if B26-0524 passes. Election deepfakes are not yet regulated, though B26-0329 is pending. Voice cloning and digital-likeness protection are entirely absent at the DC level, leaving victims to rely on federal law.

Creating a deepfake that does not depict sexual content, does not impersonate a government official, and is not used for fraud is not clearly criminal in DC. First Amendment protections for satire and commentary apply, though using a realistic deepfake to defame someone can still give rise to civil liability under common-law defamation.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

DC's primary tool against nonconsensual intimate imagery is D.C. Code s. 22-3052, enacted in 2015 and most recently amended June 8, 2024 by D.C. Law 25-175. The statute makes it unlawful to knowingly disclose a sexual image of an identifiable person without consent when the discloser knew or disregarded a substantial risk of non-consent and acted with intent to harm the depicted person or to receive financial gain.

Violation is a misdemeanor carrying up to 180 days in jail and a fine under s. 22-3571.01. When the image is published rather than disclosed, meaning shared with 6 or more people or uploaded to the internet, the offense becomes first-degree unlawful publication under s. 22-3053, a felony with up to three years in prison. Both offenses require the same intent to harm or to receive financial gain.

The critical gap: neither section mentions AI, deepfakes, or synthetic imagery. Whether a prosecutor could successfully argue that a wholly AI-generated image of a real person qualifies as a "sexual image" of that person under the statute is legally unsettled. Section 22-3053 covers images "whether obtained directly from the person or from a third party or other source," which could support an expansive reading, but defense counsel would have a credible counterargument for fully fabricated content.

B26-0524, the "Distribution of False Sexual Imagery Prohibition Amendment Act of 2025," would resolve that ambiguity. The bill was introduced December 1, 2025, and would create a new misdemeanor and a new felony specifically for nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images, video, or audio created or altered through digital technology, including AI. As of June 2026 the bill remains pending in committee.

For minors, DC's sexual performance statutes at D.C. Code s. 22-3102 and following require conduct by an actual person under 18 and do not explicitly cover computer-generated depictions. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors regardless of any state-law gap.

Election and Political Deepfakes

DC has no enacted law restricting deepfakes in political advertising. A prior attempt, B25-0832, was introduced in June 2024 and failed in December 2024. A successor measure, B26-0329, was introduced in July 2025 by Councilmembers Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George, and Brianne K. Nadeau. That bill would amend the DC Election Code to prohibit distributing AI-manipulated content about a candidate within 90 days of an election and would set minimum civil penalties.

Until B26-0329 is enacted, DC political campaigns and candidates have no local remedy against deepfake attack ads beyond general defamation law.

Election-deepfake laws in other jurisdictions have drawn First Amendment challenges. A California statute (AB 2839) was struck down and permanently enjoined in August 2025 on free-speech grounds, signaling ongoing constitutional risk for disclosure and prohibition regimes alike. Any DC election-deepfake law will face similar scrutiny.

For context on states that have enacted election-deepfake protections, see the Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State hub.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

DC has no right-of-publicity statute and no voice-cloning law. A performer, journalist, or private citizen whose voice is cloned without permission has no DC statutory remedy.

The national reference point is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. s. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protection to voice, specifically including AI simulations. At least a dozen states have followed with similar measures, but DC is not among them as of June 2026.

For comparison on how DC approaches related AI regulation more broadly, see District of Columbia AI Laws, which covers the District's AI governance policies for government procurement and workforce, a distinct scope from the private deepfake context addressed here.

Without a DC right-of-publicity law, victims of voice cloning may be able to argue common-law misappropriation of likeness, but DC courts have not established a robust body of case law on that theory. Federal proposals like the NO FAKES Act (S.1367, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness, but that bill has not passed either chamber as of June 2026 and should not be treated as existing law.

Federal Law That Applies in DC

Because DC is a federal district, federal law is the primary backstop where local statutes fall short.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is now the strongest protection for DC residents who are victims of intimate deepfakes. The law makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." The maximum penalty is two years in prison, or three years when minors are depicted. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice; the compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the takedown obligation.

The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AI voice-clone calls made to phone numbers without prior express consent are therefore illegal under existing federal law, regardless of DC's lack of a voice-cloning statute.

The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes with liquidated damages up to $150,000 (or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The 118th Congress version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. The 119th Congress version passed the Senate again in January 2026 but remains pending in the House and is not law. For background on that proposal see DEFIANCE Act: Deepfake Porn Victims' Right to Sue.

The NO FAKES Act (S.1367) would create a federal voice-and-likeness right against unauthorized AI digital replicas. It has not passed either chamber and is not existing law.

What Victims Can Do

If you are a DC resident who is the subject of an intimate deepfake, the clearest available path is a federal complaint. The TAKE IT DOWN Act authorizes FTC enforcement, and you can report violations at reportfraud.ftc.gov. For criminal referral, contact the Metropolitan Police Department's cybercrime unit or the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

For the underlying image itself, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour takedown rule applies to platforms regardless of whether you file a criminal complaint. Submit a takedown notice directly to the platform hosting the content, citing the Act.

Under existing DC law, the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (D.C. Law 25-268, effective March 7, 2025, codified at D.C. Code s. 7-2161 et seq.) gives victims a civil cause of action in DC Superior Court. A prevailing plaintiff can recover the greater of actual damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, plus punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to compel removal or prevent further disclosure. That statute does not explicitly address AI-generated images, so a civil suit under common-law theories (intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, or misappropriation) may also be worth considering for wholly synthetic content.

If the deepfake constitutes harassment, a victim may also apply for a civil protection order under D.C. Code s. 16-1001 et seq., which can prohibit further contact and electronic harassment.

For DC's broader data privacy framework, including protections against unauthorized data collection, see District of Columbia Data Privacy Laws.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about deepfake and AI laws in the District of Columbia. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly; confirm current statute text and bill status with official DC Council sources or a licensed DC attorney before acting.

Sources

See the citations below for primary sources used in this article.