Idaho Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)

Idaho has two active deepfake laws. Idaho Code § 18-6606, enacted in 2024 and amended in 2026, makes it a crime to share nonconsensual explicit synthetic media, including AI-generated deepfake images and videos. Idaho Code § 67-6628A, also enacted in 2024, gives a candidate who is deceptively depicted by AI-generated synthetic media in an election communication a private civil action for an injunction and damages; it creates no criminal penalty and imposes no disclosure requirement. There is no state right of publicity covering AI voice cloning, but federal law fills that gap.

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

It depends on the category. Idaho law directly addresses two of the three deepfake buckets: sexual or intimate images and election communications. Creating or distributing a nonconsensual explicit deepfake of an adult is a crime under § 18-6606. Using AI-generated synthetic media to deceptively misrepresent a candidate in election advertising is not a crime in Idaho, but it exposes whoever created the content to a civil suit by that candidate under § 67-6628A.

What Idaho law does not cover: purely commercial deepfakes that exploit a person's voice or likeness for financial gain. Idaho has no statutory right of publicity, unlike California, New York, or Tennessee. A non-intimate, non-electoral deepfake intended for parody or commentary is not criminalized at the state level, though it may still give rise to common law tort claims depending on the circumstances.

For minors, Idaho Code § 18-1507 covers "computer-generated visual material" depicting children in sexually explicit situations, so AI-generated child sexual abuse material is a state felony even without a real child victim.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

Idaho Code § 18-6606, titled "Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media," is a purpose-built deepfake law. It was added in 2024 and amended in 2026, and the text described here is the current post-amendment version. The statute defines "synthetic media" as "any image or video created or altered using technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to realistically misrepresent an identifiable individual as engaging in conduct in which the identifiable individual did not engage." That closing clause is the operative limit of the definition: it reaches a realistic misrepresentation of conduct the person did not engage in, not every realistic alteration of an image. The word "realistically" is defined as sufficiently convincing that an ordinary person would believe it depicts a real event.

The law prohibits three categories of conduct. First, knowingly sharing explicit synthetic media without the depicted person's consent when the sharer reasonably should know it would cause substantial emotional distress. Second, intentionally sharing such content to annoy, threaten, harass, humiliate, or degrade someone. Third, possessing explicit synthetic media and threatening to share it in exchange for money or anything of value.

Penalties depend on the victim and any prior record, not simply on repetition. A violation is a misdemeanor unless the identifiable person is under 18 or the defendant was previously found guilty of this offense, or a similar statute elsewhere, within the past five years, in which case it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $25,000, or both. That means a first-time violation against a minor victim is already a felony, not a misdemeanor.

The statute's exceptions are narrower than they first appear. Subsection (5) opens "Subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not apply when," so the carve-outs for lawful criminal investigations, reporting unlawful conduct, matters of public interest where disclosure serves a lawful public purpose, legitimate scientific research or educational use, and the normal course of civil legal proceedings attach only to the first prong, the consent and emotional distress category. They do not shield a disclosure made with intent to harass, humiliate, or degrade under subsection (1)(b), and they do not shield the threat-for-payment conduct in subsection (1)(c). The public interest carve-out carries its own internal limit as well: media does not become a matter of public interest merely because a public figure is portrayed in it.

The law is criminal only. Idaho Code § 18-6606 does not create an express civil right of action for victims. A victim can pursue common law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, or invasion of privacy, but there is no private lawsuit track built directly into § 18-6606.

Election and Political Deepfakes

Idaho is one of a growing number of states that regulates AI-generated content in political advertising. Idaho Code § 67-6628A, enacted as the Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act in 2024, addresses synthetic media in electioneering communications. Under Idaho Code § 67-6602(6), an electioneering communication is one that unambiguously refers to a candidate and is distributed within 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, so the FAIR Elections Act applies only inside those pre-election windows.

The statute defines "synthetic media" as audio or video created using generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology that appears realistic but false to a reasonable viewer and creates a "fundamentally different understanding" of the candidate's actual words or actions.

What the statute does with that definition is the part most summaries get wrong. It bans nothing and requires nothing. Subsections (3) and (4) create a private civil action: a candidate whose action or speech is deceptively represented through synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or other equitable relief, and may bring an action for general damages, special damages, or both against the information content provider. Courts may award a prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs. There is no criminal penalty and no state agency enforcement. Under subsection (6), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence, a demanding standard that shapes how usable the remedy actually is.

The "This (video/audio) has been manipulated" disclosure is an affirmative defense, not a legal requirement. Under subsection (5), a defendant sued under this section can defeat the claim by showing the communication carried that disclosure in the prescribed manner: for video, prominently displayed, in a size easily readable by the average viewer, and on screen for the duration of the video; for audio only, read in a clearly spoken manner at the beginning and the end, and, if the audio runs longer than two minutes, interspersed at intervals of no more than two minutes. Nobody is fined or charged for leaving the label off. Omitting it simply forfeits the defense. Under subsections (8) and (9), liability falls on the information content provider rather than the medium that disseminates the communication, except where the medium removes the disclosure or itself changes the content so that it qualifies as synthetic media, and a federally licensed broadcasting station transmitting a communication subject to 47 U.S.C. § 315 is carved out of even that exception.

A constitutional caveat applies across all election deepfake laws. A California election deepfake law with similar aims, AB 2839, was struck down entirely and permanently enjoined in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta on First Amendment grounds, illustrating that election deepfake statutes occupy contested constitutional territory. Idaho's law has not faced a published First Amendment challenge as of mid-2026, but that risk is real for any law restricting political speech based on its content.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

Idaho does not have a statutory right of publicity. That means there is no Idaho law that expressly bars someone from using AI to clone your voice for a commercial purpose, a campaign ad, or a product endorsement without your permission.

The practical comparison is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101, effective July 1, 2024), the national archetype for voice-clone legislation. Tennessee explicitly extended its right of publicity to include AI simulations of a person's voice. Idaho has not followed suit.

In the absence of a statute, an Idaho victim of unauthorized voice cloning would rely on common law misappropriation of name or likeness, which courts in many states have recognized without a statute. Recovery is less certain, damages harder to quantify, and the case harder to bring than under a purpose-built voice-clone law. If the voice clone is used in an explicit sexual context, § 18-6606 may apply if the audio component is part of an explicit synthetic media depiction.

For the general AI regulation landscape in Idaho, including AI use in consumer products and automated decision-making, see Idaho AI Laws, which covers a broader set of technology regulations distinct from the deepfake-specific statutes on this page.

Federal Law That Applies in Idaho

Federal law provides a meaningful backstop for Idaho residents regardless of what state law covers.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal intimate deepfake law. 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, or three years when the victim is a minor. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim notice, with the FTC enforcing that obligation. The compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026.

Federal CSAM law (18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B)) covers computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from real minors, closing any gap that Idaho's own § 18-1507 might leave.

The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making unsolicited AI voice-clone calls to cell phones illegal nationwide. This directly addresses one major commercial voice-cloning abuse.

The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes with liquidated damages of $150,000, rising to $250,000 where the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House; it is not yet law. For background, see the DEFIANCE Act explainer. Similarly, the NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would establish a federal right of publicity covering AI voice and likeness replicas, but it also remains a proposal only.

The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses, including via AI voice cloning, and took effect April 1, 2024. An extension to individual-impersonation is proposed but not yet finalized.

What Victims Can Do

If you are a victim of a nonconsensual explicit deepfake in Idaho, you have several paths. Criminal: report to local law enforcement or the Idaho Attorney General's office under § 18-6606. Because the TAKE IT DOWN Act is also a federal crime, you can also report to the FBI or the FTC.

Platform removal: the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires platforms to remove flagged intimate deepfakes within 48 hours of receiving a victim notice. Contact the platform's trust-and-safety team directly and cite the federal removal obligation.

Civil remedies: § 18-6606 is criminal only, but Idaho common law torts remain available. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil harassment, and invasion of privacy by appropriation of likeness are the most applicable theories. Consulting a private attorney to evaluate a civil claim is advisable, particularly in extortion scenarios where the perpetrator threatened to share the content.

For election deepfakes under § 67-6628A, a candidate can seek an emergency injunction to stop distribution and pursue damages in civil court. That is the only enforcement track the statute provides, there is no criminal or regulatory route, and the candidate must prove the use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence.

For broader Idaho privacy rights that intersect with this topic, see the Idaho recording laws page.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Idaho deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly; statutes enacted in 2024 and 2025 are still being interpreted by courts. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a deepfake-related charge, consult a licensed Idaho attorney.

For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.

More Idaho Laws

• Idaho AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Idaho Data Privacy Laws
• Idaho Recording Laws
• Idaho Sexting Laws