Iowa
Iowa 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. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Iowa criminalized intimate deepfakes in 2024. House File 2240, effective July 1, 2024, amended (harassment) so that sharing a fabricated intimate image of a recognizable person is treated the same as sharing a real one. A companion law, Senate File 2243, extended Iowa's child sexual exploitation statute () to AI-generated depictions of identifiable minors. Iowa still has no election deepfake law and no statutory right of publicity. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) adds a federal criminal and platform-removal layer on top of state law.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Iowa?
The short answer is: it depends on the type of deepfake and what you do with it. Iowa's statutes do not use the word "deepfake," but since July 1, 2024 the state has expressly criminalized the most harmful categories of synthetic media. Whether a deepfake is illegal in Iowa turns on which of three buckets the conduct falls into: sexual or intimate imagery, election interference, and voice or likeness rights.
For sexual deepfakes of adults, (1)(a)(5) covers fabricated intimate images of recognizable people. For AI-generated sexual images of minors, applies. For election deepfakes, Iowa has no state law. For voice cloning and AI-generated likenesses, Iowa has no right of publicity statute. Federal law adds coverage in several of these buckets.
What is clearly not covered at the state level: deepfakes that are political satire, entertainment parody, news commentary, or non-intimate imagery of private individuals. Iowa has no general synthetic-media disclosure law. Iowa does have a civil intimate-image statute, the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (Iowa Code ch. 659A), but § 659A.2(2) defines a "depicted individual" as one "whose body is shown in whole or in part in an intimate image," which on its face does not reach a wholly fabricated body. No Iowa statute creates a civil cause of action aimed at deepfakes specifically.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Iowa's nonconsensual intimate image (NCII) law lives in the harassment statute. Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5), added in 2017, makes it harassment to disseminate, publish, distribute, or post a visual depiction showing another person in full or partial nudity or engaged in a sex act without that person's consent. Like all Iowa harassment offenses, it requires intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm the victim.
House File 2240, effective July 1, 2024, closed the deepfake gap. The amended statute provides that "another person" includes an individual, recognizable by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing features, whose image is used to create, adapt, or modify a visual depiction. In plain terms, sharing a fabricated nude or sexual image of a real, recognizable person is now a crime in Iowa even though the body in the image is not actually theirs.
A violation is harassment in the first degree, an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of $855 to $8,540. Offenders who are 18 or older must also register as a sex offender. A separate statute, (invasion of privacy (nudity)), is a 2004 voyeurism law covering secretly viewing, photographing, or filming a person who is nude; it addresses nonconsensual recording rather than synthetic images.
For minors, Senate File 2243 (also effective July 1, 2024) amended Iowa Code § 728.12 (sexual exploitation of a minor). The statute now defines a visual depiction of a minor to include any depiction created, adapted, or modified to give the appearance that an identifiable minor is engaged in a prohibited sexual act. First-offense possession is a class D felony, punishable by up to five years; a second or subsequent offense is a class C felony. Federal law reaches the same conduct: (8)(B) expressly covers computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from a real minor, so AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is also a federal crime.
The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12), signed into law on May 19, 2025, adds another layer of protection for Iowans. It creates a federal criminal offense for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of both adults and minors, and it expressly includes "digital forgeries" (AI-generated deepfakes). Penalties reach up to two years in prison (three years if the victim is a minor). Separately, the law requires online platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice request, with the Federal Trade Commission handling enforcement of the removal obligation.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Iowa has no enacted election deepfake law. House File 2549, which addressed deceptive AI-generated content in elections, passed the Iowa House in March 2024 but died without becoming law, and a related Senate measure, Senate File 2318, also failed that session.
This means Iowans running for office or targeted by fabricated campaign content currently have no state-law remedy specifically tailored to election deepfakes. Standard election fraud and defamation laws may apply in limited circumstances, but they were not designed for synthetic media.
Lawmakers tried again in the 91st General Assembly (2025-2026): House File 2609 passed the Iowa House in March 2026 but failed in April 2026 without becoming law. Iowa remains among the states that have not enacted election-specific deepfake legislation.
A First Amendment note applies here: several state election deepfake laws have faced legal challenges. California's AB 2839 was struck down and permanently enjoined in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta on First Amendment grounds, signaling that courts will scrutinize how broadly these laws restrict political speech. Any future Iowa election deepfake law would need to navigate that same constitutional tension.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Iowa does not have a statutory right of publicity. Many states have enacted statutes giving individuals the exclusive right to control commercial use of their name, image, and likeness; Iowa has not. This absence means there is no Iowa statute that expressly prohibits someone from using an AI voice clone or AI-generated likeness of an Iowa resident for commercial purposes without consent.
Iowa common law does recognize a tort claim for misappropriation of name or likeness, drawn from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. A person whose voice or image is commercially exploited without permission may be able to sue under that theory, but the remedy is less certain than a dedicated statute and has not been tested against AI voice cloning scenarios.
For comparison, Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101, effective July 1, 2024) is the national reference point: it extended Tennessee's right of publicity expressly to voice, including AI voice simulations. Iowa has no equivalent.
At the federal level, the NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S. 1367 / H.R. 2794, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI-generated digital replicas of voice and likeness. Both versions were introduced on April 9, 2025 and referred to the Judiciary Committee in their respective chambers; neither has advanced out of committee, and the bill is not law as of August 2026.
For more on how Iowa approaches artificial intelligence regulation generally, see Iowa AI Laws, which covers the broader landscape of AI governance in the state beyond deepfake-specific statutes.
Federal Law That Applies in Iowa
Because Iowa's state statutes still leave gaps, particularly for election deepfakes, voice cloning, and commercial likeness misuse, federal law does substantial work for Iowa residents.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) is the most important recent development. Signed May 19, 2025, it is the first federal intimate-deepfake law. It criminalizes knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI deepfakes, of adults (up to two years) and minors (up to three years). Its platform-removal requirement took effect May 19, 2026.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)) covers AI-generated images of minors that are indistinguishable from a real minor. There is no First Amendment defense for indistinguishable material following the PROTECT Act fix.
The FCC's AI robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) makes AI-generated voice clones in robocalls illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). The ruling was triggered by the fake-Biden robocall during the 2024 New Hampshire primary, and the FCC issued a $6 million fine (finalized September 2024) against the consultant responsible. Iowans who receive AI-voice robocalls without prior express consent can file complaints with the FCC.
The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses, including via AI voice cloning. The FTC can also pursue AI voice fraud under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Two pending federal bills are frequently discussed but are not law: 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 of $150,000, or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and now awaits a House vote. The NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S. 1367 / H.R. 2794, 119th Congress) would create a federal voice-and-likeness right of publicity; it was referred to the Judiciary Committee in each chamber on April 9, 2025 and has not advanced. Neither bill is law as of August 2026.
For background on the DEFIANCE Act's history and current status, see DEFIANCE Act: Deepfake Porn Victims' Right to Sue.
What Iowa Victims Can Do
Victims of deepfakes in Iowa have several avenues under both state and federal law.
For intimate deepfakes, the most immediate option is the TAKE IT DOWN Act's platform-removal process. Victims can submit a notice to any covered platform, which must remove the content within 48 hours. The FTC enforces compliance. This applies to both real photographs that have been manipulated and to wholly fabricated AI-generated depictions.
For criminal reports, Iowa victims can contact local law enforcement to pursue a charge under Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5), which expressly covers synthetic intimate images of recognizable people. If the victim is a minor, Iowa Code § 728.12 and federal CSAM law apply. For interstate incidents or cases involving minors, contacting the FBI is appropriate, as federal CSAM law and the TAKE IT DOWN Act carry federal jurisdiction.
For civil remedies, Iowa Code § 708.7 is a criminal statute; its private-right-of-action provision applies only to false reports to law enforcement, not to intimate image violations. Iowa Code ch. 659A (the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, enacted in 2021) does give intimate-image victims a civil action: under § 659A.6 a prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 against each defendant, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. Its reach over deepfakes is doubtful, though, because § 659A.2(2) limits it to a "depicted individual" whose "body is shown in whole or in part in an intimate image," language that does not obviously cover a synthetic body attached to a real person's face. Victims may also consider common law tort theories including intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation per se (for images falsely attributed to the plaintiff), and misappropriation of likeness. These claims carry evidentiary hurdles and are not guaranteed, but they represent the available state civil toolkit until Iowa or Congress enacts a dedicated civil cause of action.
For platform takedowns beyond the TAKE IT DOWN Act's removal obligation, platforms' own terms of service often prohibit nonconsensual intimate imagery, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates a CyberTipline for CSAM reports.
For data privacy considerations related to AI-generated content involving your personal information, see Iowa Data Privacy Laws.
For context on Iowa's recording consent framework, which intersects with consent-based surveillance and privacy law, see Iowa Recording Laws.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Nonconsensual intimate image or synthetic deepfake of a recognizable adult | Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5) | Aggravated misdemeanor: up to 2 years jail, $855-$8,540 fine, sex offender registration for adult offenders |
| AI-generated sexual depiction of an identifiable minor (possession) | Iowa Code § 728.12(3) | Class D felony (first offense); class C felony (repeat offense) |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (adult) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | Up to 2 years federal prison |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (minor) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | Up to 3 years federal prison |
| Platform failure to remove flagged content within 48 hours | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | FTC enforcement action |
| AI-generated CSAM (indistinguishable from real minor) | 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (federal) | Federal felony |
| AI voice clone robocall without consent | TCPA / FCC 24-17 (federal) | FCC enforcement, civil damages up to $1,500/call |
| AI impersonation of government or business entity | FTC Rule 16 CFR Part 461 (federal) | FTC enforcement action |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Iowa deepfake and AI laws, not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly, including through federal legislation enacted as recently as 2025. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a deepfake-related legal matter, consult a licensed Iowa attorney for advice specific to your situation.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
More Iowa Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Iowa?
It depends on what the deepfake depicts. Sharing a fabricated intimate image of a recognizable person without consent is harassment in the first degree under Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5), an aggravated misdemeanor, and AI-generated sexual images of identifiable minors are felonies under Iowa Code § 728.12. An AI voice clone used in a robocall violates federal TCPA rules. Iowa has no election deepfake law and no right of publicity statute, leaving political and commercial deepfakes largely unregulated at the state level.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Iowa?
Yes. Since July 1, 2024, Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a)(5) expressly covers synthetic intimate images: the statute treats a visual depiction created, adapted, or modified using a recognizable person's image the same as a real intimate image. Sharing one without consent is an aggravated misdemeanor (up to two years in jail and a fine of $855 to $8,540), and adult offenders must register as sex offenders. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act adds federal criminal penalties and a 48-hour platform removal requirement.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Iowa?
Iowa Code § 708.7 is a criminal statute, and its private-right-of-action clause applies only to false reports to law enforcement, not intimate images. Iowa Code ch. 659A (Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act) does provide a civil action for nonconsensual intimate images, with statutory damages up to $10,000 against each defendant, attorney fees and injunctive relief under § 659A.6, but it is written for images in which the victim's own body is shown, so its application to a fabricated deepfake body is untested. Common law tort claims may also be available: intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation per se, or misappropriation of likeness (for commercial use cases). The DEFIANCE Act, which would create a federal civil cause of action with liquidated damages of $150,000 (or $250,000 in aggravated cases), passed the Senate in January 2026 but remains pending in the House as of August 2026.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Iowa?
Iowa has no state law specifically addressing AI voice cloning. Common law misappropriation of name or likeness may apply if a voice clone is used commercially without consent, but this is uncertain. Federal rules do apply: the FCC ruled in February 2024 that AI-generated voices in robocalls are illegal under the TCPA without prior consent, and the FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) covers AI voice impersonation of government entities and businesses.
Does Iowa have an election deepfake law?
No. House File 2549 passed the Iowa House in March 2024 but died without becoming law, and House File 2609 passed the House in March 2026 but failed that April. As of mid-2026, Iowa has no enacted election deepfake statute. Federal election law and general fraud statutes may apply in some circumstances, but they were not designed for synthetic media.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and how does it help Iowans?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) was signed into law on May 19, 2025. It is the first federal law specifically criminalizing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate deepfakes of real people without consent, with penalties up to two years in prison (three for victims who are minors). It also requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's request, enforceable by the FTC. It works alongside Iowa Code § 708.7, giving Iowa victims both a state and a federal route.
Does Iowa have a right of publicity law covering AI-generated likenesses?
No. Iowa does not have a statutory right of publicity. Many states have enacted laws giving individuals control over commercial use of their name, image, and likeness, including against AI-generated versions, but Iowa is not among them. Iowa's common law misappropriation tort may offer some protection, but it is narrower and less certain than a dedicated statute. The federal NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S. 1367 / H.R. 2794), which would create a national AI likeness right, is still in committee and has not passed Congress as of August 2026.
What should an Iowa deepfake victim do first?
If you are the victim of a nonconsensual intimate deepfake, the first step is to submit a removal request to the platform hosting the content under the TAKE IT DOWN Act (the platform must act within 48 hours). For criminal matters, contact local Iowa law enforcement, which can charge harassment under Iowa Code § 708.7, or the FBI for federal jurisdiction cases. Preserve evidence (screenshots, URLs, timestamps) before requesting removal. Consult an Iowa attorney if you are considering a civil claim or if the situation involves threats or extortion.
Updates
Corrected the federal NO FAKES Act citation to S.1367 / H.R.2794 of the 119th Congress and its status to still pending in committee, normalised the federal bill currency date to August 2026, and added Iowa Code ch. 659A, the state civil remedy for nonconsensual intimate images, along with the reason its "body is shown" definition may not reach fabricated deepfakes.
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.
Iowa Code, Chapter 708: ASSAULT
§ 708.7Harassment.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
1. a. A person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, the person does any of the following: (1) Communicates with another by telephone, telegraph, writing, or via electronic communication without legitimate purpose and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or harm. (2) Places a simulated explosive or simulated incendiary device in or near a building, vehicle, airplane, railroad engine or railroad car, or boat occupied by another person. (3) Orders merchandise or services in the name of another, or to be delivered to another, without the other person’s knowledge or consent. (4) Reports or causes to be reported false information to a law enforcement authority implicating another in some criminal activity, knowing that the information is false, or reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act, knowing the act did not occur.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 100 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Button (2001) held that section 708.7 does not require present ability to carry out a threat and that its "without legitimate purpose" clause is the constitutional safety valve. State v. Evans (2003) held a threat is not a necessary element, since the statute reads threaten, intimidate, or alarm disjunctively.
Leading cases:
- State of Iowa v. Kelvin Plain Sr. (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017, 898 N.W.2d 801)“…sment in the first degree, an aggravated misdemeanor under Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(b) (2015). On appeal, the de…”
- State of Iowa v. Tina Lynn Thacker (Supreme Court of Iowa 2015, 862 N.W.2d 402)“…eanor, and disorderly conduct, a simple misdemeanor. See Iowa Code § 708.7 (2) (2013); id. § 723.4(2). On Febr…”
- State v. Wiederien (Supreme Court of Iowa 2006, 709 N.W.2d 538)✓Wiederien was charged under section 708.7(4) over mail, faxes and following aimed at her physician, then acquitted because the State failed to prove intent to harass. The court held section 708.12(2) gave no authority to continue the no-contact order after that acquittal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Iowa Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Iowa Code 709.21 Penalties (2026), Iowa Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Iowa Code, Chapter 728: OBSCENITY
§ 728.12Sexual exploitation of a minor.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. It shall be unlawful to employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, coerce, solicit, knowingly permit, or otherwise cause or attempt to cause a minor or a law enforcement officer or agent posing as a minor to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of a prohibited sexual act. A person must know, or have reason to know, or intend that the act or simulated act may be photographed, filmed, or otherwise preserved in a visual depiction. A person who commits a violation of this subsection commits a class “B” felony. Notwithstanding section 902.9, the court may assess a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars for each offense under this subsection in addition to imposing any other authorized sentence. 2. It shall be unlawful to knowingly promote any material visually depicting a live performance of a minor engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of a prohibited sexual act. A person who commits a violation of this subsection commits a class “C” felony. Notwithstanding section 902.9, the court may assess a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars for each offense under this subsection in addition to imposing any other authorized sentence. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 61 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Hunter (1996) affirmed a 728.12(1) conviction and rejected a vagueness challenge to the nudity definition of a prohibited sexual act, holding the conduct fell squarely within it. State v. Gilmour (1994) held knowledge of the minor's age is not an element of 728.12(1) and that mistake of age is no defense.
Leading cases:
- State of Iowa v. Brent Michael Romer (Supreme Court of Iowa 2013, 832 N.W.2d 169)✓A teacher posed and photographed teenage students in sexual acts and was convicted on five counts under this statute, unchallenged on appeal; affirming, the court described the statute as aimed at the creation of child pornography rather than merely obscene material.
- State v. Robinson (Supreme Court of Iowa 2000, 618 N.W.2d 306)✓A student downloaded images of minors in sex acts to his dorm computer, saying they were research for a class paper; the court held chapter 728's educational use exemption never permits possessing child pornography, so it was not vague as applied to him, and affirmed.
- State v. Hunter (Supreme Court of Iowa 1996, 550 N.W.2d 460)✓A father photographed his partially clothed twelve-year-old daughter in provocative poses exposing her breasts, pubic area and buttocks; the court held nudity does not require total nakedness, so the statute was not vague as applied to him, and affirmed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Iowa Pornography Laws (2026): Obscenity and Age Verification
Iowa Code, Chapter 709: SEXUAL ABUSE
§ 709.21Invasion of privacy — nudity.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person who knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, commits invasion of privacy if all of the following apply: a. The other person does not consent or is unable to consent to being viewed, photographed, or filmed. b. The other person is in a state of full or partial nudity. c. The other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy while in a state of full or partial nudity. 2. As used in this section: a. “Full or partial nudity” means the showing of any part of the human genitals or pubic area or buttocks, or any part of the nipple of the breast of a female, with less than fully opaque covering. b. “Photographs or films” means the making of any photograph, motion picture film, videotape, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person. 3. A person who violates this section commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 19 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts apply section 709.21 element by element. State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant affirmed a conviction on circumstantial proof of hidden bedroom cameras; State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at open public restroom urinals.
Leading cases:
- State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2018, 919 N.W.2d 635)✓A man was convicted under section 709.21 for allegedly looking at teenage boys at urinals in a public restroom at a track meet; the court reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at those open urinals and insufficient evidence of a sexual purpose.
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Templeton (Supreme Court of Iowa 2010, 784 N.W.2d 761)✓A lawyer repeatedly peered into women's bedroom and bathroom windows and pleaded guilty to six counts of invasion of privacy under section 709.21; the court did not interpret the statute but held those convictions reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law.
- State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2026)✓The mother's live-in partner hid a camera in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom, and over 1,000 nude images were found on his phones; the court held the circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain his invasion-of-privacy conviction under section 709.21(1).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights (2026), Iowa Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Iowa Video Recording Laws: Where You Can and Cannot Film (2026)
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
- Iowa Code § 708.7 (Harassment, including nonconsensual and synthetic intimate images)(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa House File 2240 (2024) (synthetic intimate image amendment to Iowa Code § 708.7, effective July 1, 2024)(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 728.12 (Sexual exploitation of a minor, including AI-generated depictions of identifiable minors)(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Senate File 2243 (2024) (AI-generated depictions of identifiable minors, effective July 1, 2024)(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 709.21 (Invasion of privacy (nudity))(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (federal definition of child pornography including computer-generated images)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 (AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under TCPA, Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses, 16 CFR Part 461 (eff. April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- DEFIANCE Act, S.1837, 119th Congress (passed Senate Jan. 13, 2026; pending in the House)(congress.gov).gov
- Iowa Code ch. 659A, Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (2021 Acts ch. 56); § 659A.2(2) "depicted individual"; § 659A.6 remedies(legis.iowa.gov)
- NO FAKES Act of 2025, S.1367, 119th Congress (introduced Apr. 9, 2025; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary)(congress.gov)
- NO FAKES Act of 2025, H.R.2794, 119th Congress (introduced Apr. 9, 2025; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary)(congress.gov)