Georgia
Georgia 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 9, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Georgia criminalizes nonconsensual sexual deepfakes through , which was amended in 2020 to explicitly cover "falsely created" videographic and still images. No election deepfake law and no AI voice-cloning statute have been enacted in Georgia, though multiple bills failed in the 2025-2026 legislative sessions. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12, 2025) layers on top of state law to address intimate deepfakes nationwide.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Georgia?
Yes, for sexual content. Georgia covers deepfakes in three contexts: nonconsensual intimate imagery involving adults, AI-generated child sexual abuse material involving minors, and (at the federal level) intimate deepfakes under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. What Georgia does not yet have is an election deepfake statute or a voice-cloning law, placing it in the majority of states that have addressed intimate imagery but left political and voice contexts unregulated at the state level.
A non-sexual, non-commercial deepfake of a private person (for example, a realistic video placing someone at a location they never visited) falls outside Georgia's criminal statutes. Common law torts such as defamation or false light invasion of privacy may apply depending on the circumstances, but there is no standalone criminal prohibition covering that scenario.
For content involving minors, Georgia's CSAM statute and federal law both apply. The 2024 amendment to closed a loophole that had allowed defendants to argue that AI-synthesized material was not covered because no real child was depicted.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
is Georgia's core NCII statute. It prohibits electronically transmitting or posting a photograph or video depicting nudity or sexually explicit conduct of an adult without that person's consent. The elements stack rather than substitute for one another: the transmission or post must be harassment or cause financial loss to the depicted person, must serve no legitimate purpose to the depicted person, and must be made either to a website, gallery, message board, or similar service that advertises or promotes its service as showing, previewing, or distributing sexually explicit conduct, or by any other electronic means. The 2020 amendment (effective August 3, 2020) inserted "including a falsely created videographic or still image" into the definition of prohibited content. That language squarely covers AI-generated deepfakes: a synthetic intimate image of an identifiable Georgia resident falls within the statute's reach.

The penalty structure depends on the method of distribution and whether it is a repeat offense, and the two pathways are very different. A first offense under subsection (b)(1)(B) or (b)(2)(B), meaning a post made by ordinary electronic means, is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature; a second or subsequent violation becomes a felony punishable by one to five years, a fine of up to $100,000, or both, under OCGA § 16-11-90(c)(1). A post under subsection (b)(1)(A) or (b)(2)(A), meaning one made to a website, file-sharing site, gallery, live webcam, web page, or message board that advertises or promotes its service as showing, previewing, or distributing sexually explicit conduct, is a felony on the very first offense, punishable by one to five years and a fine of up to $100,000, rising to two to five years on a second or subsequent conviction under OCGA § 16-11-90(c)(2). Georgia has not enacted a statutory civil cause of action for NCII deepfake victims; civil options are limited to common law claims such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
For minors, HB 993 (2024 session, effective July 1, 2024) amended , Georgia's sexual exploitation of children statute. The amendment provides that it is not a defense to prosecution that the sexually exploitive visual medium was created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor was engaging in sexually explicit conduct. This eliminates the argument that AI-generated or deepfaked child sexual abuse material falls outside the statute because no real child was involved.
Georgia also came close to adding a dedicated AI child-exploitation statute. SB 9 (2025), the "Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act" sponsored by Sen. John Albers, would have repealed and replaced OCGA § 16-12-80 with a new offense of distributing computer-generated obscene material depicting a child, punishable by one to 15 years, and would have added sentencing enhancements in Title 17 for defendants who use an artificial intelligence system to commit certain offenses. The House passed it by committee substitute on March 27, 2025, but the Senate disagreed with the House substitute on January 28, 2026 and the chambers did not resolve the difference, so it has not become law.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Georgia does not have an enacted election deepfake law as of June 2026. Nothing in Georgia law requires a disclaimer on AI-generated campaign material, and no Georgia statute makes deceptive synthetic political media a crime. HB 986, an election deepfake measure, was tabled by the Georgia Senate in March 2024 and did not become law, and no replacement has been enacted since.
SB 9 (2025) is frequently miscast as Georgia's election deepfake bill. It is not. SB 9 is the "Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act," which deals with computer-generated obscene material depicting a child and with sentencing enhancements for AI-assisted crimes, as described in the previous section. It contains no campaign, disclaimer, or pre-election provision.
A First Amendment caveat frames the absence of a law here. A federal court enjoined portions of California's election deepfake law in August 2025 on free-speech grounds, and Georgia legislators would face the same constitutional headwinds if a disclosure bill advances in a future session.
For details on how Georgia regulates AI more broadly, including government procurement and algorithmic decision-making, see Georgia AI Laws.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Georgia has not enacted an AI voice-cloning law. Georgia's right of publicity is a common law doctrine rather than a statute; the Georgia Supreme Court recognized it in Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Social Change v. American Heritage Products (1982). It covers commercial use of a person's name and likeness without consent, but courts have not explicitly treated voice as a protected attribute, and no Georgia court has extended the "likeness" concept to voice in the AI context.
By comparison, Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is the national reference point: it expressly extended right-of-publicity protection to voice, including AI simulations, making Tennessee the first state to close this gap. Georgia has not followed that model.
HB 566 (2025), Georgia's "NO FAKES Act," would have protected the voice and visual likeness of individuals against unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas, providing a registry of designated agents and civil remedies. The bill failed to advance past Georgia's crossover deadline (March 6, 2025) and did not become law. No action was taken before the two-year legislative term ended in April 2026, so a new bill would need to be introduced in a future session.
At the federal level, the proposed NO FAKES Act (S.4591 / H.R.8915, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas. As of June 2026, it has not passed either chamber and is not current law.
For Georgia residents whose voice or likeness is being used commercially without consent, a civil claim under the existing common law right of publicity is the best available avenue, though the absence of explicit voice protection makes success uncertain. Using an AI-cloned voice in a robocall without consent is separately prohibited under the federal FCC ruling described below.
If your work intersects with AI in meetings or call recording, Georgia Recording Laws covers Georgia's one-party consent framework.
Federal Law That Applies in Georgia
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law directly targeting intimate deepfakes. It creates a federal crime for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries" covering adults or minors. Penalties run up to two years in prison, or three years when minors are involved. Separately, the Act requires online platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of receiving a victim's notice; the FTC enforces platform compliance, with the full removal obligation effective May 19, 2026.

Because Georgia's OCGA § 16-11-90 covers the same general conduct, both state criminal charges and a federal TAKE IT DOWN removal request can run in parallel for the same deepfake image. Victims in Georgia are not limited to choosing one path.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837 / H.R.3562, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages up to $150,000 ($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; it was reintroduced in 2025 and passed the Senate again in January 2026, but it remains pending in the House. It is not current law.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls qualify as "artificial" voices under the TCPA, . AI voice-clone robocalls to phones without prior express consent are illegal nationwide, including in Georgia.
Federal CSAM law also applies independently of state statutes. Under (8)(B) (PROTECT Act, 2003), computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from real minors are covered regardless of whether any real child was involved. No First Amendment defense applies to such material.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act () does not immunize platforms from federal criminal law or from the TAKE IT DOWN Act's removal obligations. State criminal laws targeting creators are not Section 230-barred.
What Victims Can Do
For sexual deepfake victims in Georgia, the first step is a criminal complaint to local law enforcement or the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). OCGA § 16-11-90 is a state criminal statute; prosecutors can pursue it independently. Georgia does not provide a statutory civil cause of action under § 16-11-90, so civil remedies require pursuing common law claims like invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, which require proving actual damages.
Platform removal runs as a parallel track. Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a victim can submit a removal notice to any covered platform and the platform must act within 48 hours. The FTC enforces this requirement. Most major platforms also have independent NCII reporting processes, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates the Take It Down program specifically for minors' images.
For AI robocall voice-cloning violations, file a complaint with the FCC at fcc.gov. For political advertisement deepfakes, Georgia does not have a state election deepfake law, so state-level enforcement is not available; the FEC governs federal candidates under separate authority.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing a sexual deepfake of an adult by ordinary electronic means (first offense) | OCGA § 16-11-90(b)(1)(B) or (b)(2)(B); (c)(1) | Misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature |
| Same conduct, second or subsequent offense | OCGA § 16-11-90(c)(1) | Felony; 1 to 5 years, fine up to $100,000, or both |
| Posting a sexual deepfake of an adult to a site that advertises itself as showing sexually explicit conduct (first offense) | OCGA § 16-11-90(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2)(A); (c)(2) | Felony; 1 to 5 years, fine up to $100,000, or both |
| Same conduct, second or subsequent offense | OCGA § 16-11-90(c)(2) | Felony; 2 to 5 years, fine up to $100,000, or both |
| Possessing or creating AI-generated CSAM involving a minor | OCGA § 16-12-100 (as amended by HB 993, eff. July 1, 2024) | Felony (sexual exploitation of children penalties) |
| Publishing intimate deepfakes online (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act, P.L. 119-12 | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years for minors) |
| AI voice-clone robocalls without consent | FCC 24-17 / TCPA, | FCC enforcement; civil TCPA liability up to $1,500 per call |
| Unauthorized commercial use of name or likeness | Georgia common law right of publicity | Civil injunction; damages |

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Georgia deepfake and AI laws, not legal advice. This area of law is changing rapidly; the content here reflects statutes and bills as of June 2026 but may not capture recent amendments, newly enacted legislation, or court decisions. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face related charges, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Sources
See the full list of primary sources cited for this page below.
More Georgia Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Georgia?
It depends on the content. Creating or distributing a sexual deepfake of an identifiable adult without consent violates OCGA § 16-11-90, which was amended in 2020 to explicitly cover AI-generated 'falsely created' images. A non-sexual deepfake of a private person used for non-commercial purposes is not covered by a Georgia criminal statute, though [defamation](/us-laws/defamation-of-character) or false-light privacy claims may apply depending on the context.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Georgia?
Yes. OCGA § 16-11-90 criminalizes the nonconsensual electronic transmission or posting of sexually explicit images, explicitly including 'falsely created videographic or still images' since the 2020 amendment. Where the image is posted determines the penalty. A post made by ordinary electronic means is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature on a first offense and a felony on a repeat. A post made to a site that advertises or promotes its service as showing, previewing, or distributing sexually explicit conduct is a felony on the very first offense, punishable by one to five years and a fine of up to $100,000, and two to five years on a repeat.
Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in Georgia?
Georgia's OCGA § 16-11-90 is a criminal statute with no explicit civil cause of action for victims. Civil claims are possible under common law theories such as invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or defamation, but you must prove actual damages. For commercial misuse of your name or likeness, Georgia's common law right of publicity provides a civil remedy.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Georgia?
Not under a standalone Georgia law. The state's common law right of publicity does not explicitly cover voice, and Georgia's NO FAKES Act (HB 566) failed in 2025. Using an AI-cloned voice in a robocall without consent violates the FCC's February 2024 TCPA ruling nationwide. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act would cover voice replicas but has not been enacted.
Does Georgia law cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material?
Yes. HB 993 (2024, effective July 1, 2024) amended OCGA § 16-12-100 to remove the 'digitally altered' defense, closing the gap that previously allowed arguments that AI-generated content depicting minors fell outside Georgia's child sexual exploitation statute. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) also covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors.
Does Georgia have an election deepfake law?
No. Georgia has no statute regulating AI-generated or deepfaked campaign material, and no state disclaimer requirement applies to political advertising. HB 986, an election deepfake measure, was tabled by the Georgia Senate in March 2024 and no replacement has been enacted. SB 9 (2025) is often described as Georgia's election deepfake bill, but it is not one: SB 9 is the 'Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act,' addressing computer-generated obscene material depicting a child and AI sentencing enhancements.
Does the TAKE IT DOWN Act apply in Georgia?
Yes. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that applies in all states, including Georgia. It creates a federal crime for publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice. It works alongside, not instead of, Georgia's OCGA § 16-11-90.
What should I do if someone posted a deepfake of me in Georgia?
File a criminal complaint with local law enforcement or the Georgia Bureau of Investigation; OCGA § 16-11-90 is a state criminal statute enforceable by prosecutors. Submit a removal notice to the hosting platform under the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour rule. Consult a Georgia attorney about common law civil claims if you can show actual harm. If the content involves a minor, contact NCMEC's CyberTipline immediately.
Updates
Corrected the penalty section to disclose that OCGA § 16-11-90(c)(2) makes a first offense a felony when a sexual deepfake is posted to a site that advertises itself as showing sexually explicit conduct, restated the statute's elements as cumulative rather than alternative, and removed the incorrect description of SB 9 (2025) as an election deepfake bill.
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
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.
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 16-11-90Prohibition on nude or sexually explicit electronic transmissions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Harassment" means engaging in conduct directed at a depicted person that is intended to cause substantial emotional harm to the depicted person. (2) "Nudity" means: (A) The showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks witho
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 6 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Somerville v. White (2016) held that this Code section creates no private right of action. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed compensatory and punitive damages awarded to a woman whose nude photographs were emailed to her contacts, because a criminal statute enacted after July 1, 2010 must expressly provide a civil remedy.
Leading cases:
- Somerville v. White (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2016, 337 Ga. App. 414)✓A trial court found a man violated OCGA 16-11-90 by electronically transmitting nude photos of his ex-girlfriend and awarded her $500 plus $15,000 in punitive damages; the court held the criminal statute creates no private right of action and reversed both awards.
- Rogers v. Dupree (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2017, 340 Ga. App. 811)“…based on a defendant’s counterclaim for “Intentional Tort (OCGA § 16-11-90).” Somerville v. White, 337 Ga. App…”
- Joe Rogers, Jr. v. Hylton B. Dupree (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2017)“…based on a defendant’s counterclaim for “Intentional Tort (OCGA § 16-11-90).” Somerville v. White, 337 Ga. App. 41…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, Georgia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Criminal Penalties (2026)
§ 16-12-100Sexual exploitation of children; reporting violation; civil forfeiture; penalties.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Minor" means any person under the age of 18 years. (2) "Performance" means any play, dance, or exhibit to be shown to or viewed by an audience. (3) "Producing" means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, or publishing. (4) "Sexually explic
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 136 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Phagan v. State (1997) held OCGA 16-12-100(b)(1) contains a scienter requirement, so the State must prove the accused knew the person filmed was under 18. New v. State (2014) applied subsection (b)(8), holding residual computer files alone do not establish knowing possession but can when combined with other circumstantial evidence.
Leading cases:
- Phagan v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1997, 268 Ga. 272)✓Phagan videotaped sexually explicit conduct with a 15-year-old girl; the Supreme Court of Georgia held OCGA 16-12-100(b)(1) carries a scienter requirement obliging the State to prove he knew she was under 18, then reversed that conviction over unauthenticated tapes.
- New v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2014, 327 Ga. App. 87)✓Child pornography surfaced as automatic shadow copies on New's computer alongside LimeWire logs and wiping software; the Court of Appeals held backup files plus other circumstantial evidence can prove prior knowing possession under OCGA 16-12-100(b), and upheld 35 counts.
- Phillips v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2004, 269 Ga. App. 619)✓Phillips photographed his landlady's three and five year old daughters naked in a bath; the Court of Appeals found those images not objectively lewd, reversed one OCGA 16-12-100 count as unsupported and the other because the jury charge constructively amended the indictment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Pornography Laws (2026): Age Verification and the Pole Tax
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)
§ 230Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive materialIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
The Congress finds the following: The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 853 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 591 F.3d 250)“…cation of information created and developed by others.2 See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (e)(3), & (f)(3); Zeran v. Am. O…”
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 521 U.S. 844)“…entitled "Online Family Empowerment." See 110 Stat. 137 , 47 U. S. C. § 230 (1994 ed., Supp. II); 141 Cong. Rec. 2…”
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2008, 528 F.3d 413)“…aims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C § 230, and Texas common law. For the followin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, xAI Sues Grok User Over Alleged AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material, Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and BIPA Rules (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
- OCGA § 16-11-90 - Prohibition on nude or sexually explicit electronic transmissions (as amended 2020, 2021)(law.justia.com).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- Georgia HB 993 (2024) - Sexual exploitation of children; digitally altered defense removed (eff. July 1, 2024)(gov.georgia.gov).gov
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 - AI-generated voices in robocalls are artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) - Federal CSAM law covering computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- Georgia Attorney General Opinion 2021-1 - Fingerprinting requirements for OCGA § 16-11-90 violations(law.georgia.gov).gov
- Georgia SB 78 (2021), House Rules Committee substitute - text enacting OCGA § 16-11-90(b) and the two-branch penalty structure in (c)(1) and (c)(2)(legis.ga.gov)
- Georgia SB 9 (2025), "Ensuring Accountability for Illegal AI Activities Act" as introduced - computer-generated obscene material depicting a child; AI sentencing enhancement(legis.ga.gov)
- Georgia SB 9 (2025) as passed Senate - same caption and subject matter, no campaign or disclaimer provision(legis.ga.gov)
- Georgia House composite status sheet (2025-2026 term) - SB 9 passed House by Rules Committee substitute 3/27/2025; Senate disagreed to House substitute 1/28/2026(legis.ga.gov)