Kansas
Kansas Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Kansas has enacted one of the most explicit state laws targeting non-consensual intimate deepfakes. KSA 21-6101(a)(8), amended effective July 1, 2025, directly criminalizes distributing AI-generated intimate images of an identifiable person without consent. Kansas has not enacted election deepfake or AI voice cloning laws, and its criminal statute does not include a civil remedy.
Information last verified on June 9, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed attorney.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Kansas?
The answer depends on what kind of deepfake and what the creator does with it. Kansas law now directly covers one bucket: non-consensual intimate deepfakes of adults, where the purpose is to harass, threaten, or intimidate. Two other major categories, election deepfakes and AI voice cloning, lack any state statute.
For sexual and intimate deepfakes of adults, KSA 21-6101(a)(8) is among the most clearly worded state NCII deepfake laws in the country. The 2025 amendment explicitly reaches images "created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict such identifiable person," covering both fully synthetic deepfakes and AI-manipulated real images.
For AI-generated child sexual abuse material, KSA 21-5510 independently covers the conduct through its broad definition of "visual depiction," which includes computer-generated and digitally created imagery. The statute also addresses "artificially generated visual depictions" as a specific category.
For political and election deepfakes, Kansas has no law. Both bills introduced in the 2023-24 session failed, and no replacement legislation has been enacted through the 2025-26 session. Creating or distributing an AI-generated deepfake of a candidate in political advertising is not a state crime in Kansas, though federal laws on fraud and election interference may apply in specific circumstances.
For AI voice cloning and digital likeness, Kansas has no right of publicity statute and no voice-specific law. Only common law misappropriation of name or likeness is available, and that doctrine does not explicitly reach AI-generated voice replicas.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
KSA 21-6101(a)(8) is the centerpiece of Kansas deepfake law. The statute, which sits within the breach-of-privacy framework, prohibits disseminating "any videotape, photograph, film or image of another identifiable person 18 years of age or older who is nude or engaged in sexual activity" when three conditions are met: the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the distribution occurred without consent, and the actor intended to harass, threaten, or intimidate the depicted person.
The 2025 amendment by L. 2025, ch. 120 extended the prohibition to cover images "created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict such identifiable person, regardless of whether such identifiable person was involved in the creation of the original image." That final clause matters: a completely synthetic deepfake of a real person (who never appeared in any source image) falls within the statute.
Penalties under KSA 21-6101(b)(2) are felony-level. A first violation is a severity level 8 person felony. A second or subsequent conviction within five years is elevated to a severity level 5 person felony, which carries substantially heavier sentencing under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines.
One limit: the statute requires intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate. A deepfake created and distributed with other motives, such as financial extortion or reputational damage, may not satisfy that element. Prosecutors in those cases might look to other statutes (such as blackmail or stalking) to complement a 21-6101 charge. There is no civil cause of action explicitly created alongside the criminal statute; KSA 21-6101 is a criminal provision only.
For AI-generated child sexual abuse material, KSA 21-5510 provides comprehensive coverage without the intent-to-harass limitation. The statute defines "visual depiction" to include "any photograph, film, video picture, digital or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical or other means," and defines "artificially generated visual depiction" as an obscene depiction that appears to show a child under 18, including imagery indistinguishable from a real child, morphed from a real child's image or generated without any actual child involvement. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) has covered photorealistic AI CSAM since the PROTECT Act of 2003 and operates alongside the Kansas statute.
The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) supplements Kansas law for adult intimate deepfakes. It creates a federal criminal offense, punishable by up to two years in prison (three years if the victim is a minor), for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions including "digital forgeries" created with AI. Online platforms must remove content flagged by victims within 48 hours; the Federal Trade Commission enforces compliance. Kansas victims can use both the state felony statute and the federal act.
The proposed DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would add a federal civil cause of action for adult intimate deepfake victims with liquidated damages of $150,000, or $250,000 when the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking or harassment. The prior-session version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. The Senate passed the reintroduced bill by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and it now awaits a House vote. It is not law. See news about the DEFIANCE Act and deepfake porn victims' right to sue for background.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Kansas has no enacted law addressing deepfakes in election or political advertising. The legislature considered two bills during the 2023-24 session: HB 2559 would have required disclosure when AI was used to create political media and made creating false representations of candidates a form of corrupt political advertising; SB 375 would have made it a Class C misdemeanor to use generative AI to alter a candidate's or official's appearance, action, or speech in campaign material. Both bills failed to advance.
No successor legislation was enacted during the 2025-26 session. Kansas voters and candidates have no state-law protection against AI-generated political deepfakes as of June 2026.
First Amendment considerations are relevant here. A federal court struck down California's election deepfake law, AB 2839, in its entirety in August 2025, permanently enjoining its enforcement on First Amendment grounds in Kohls v. Bonta. That ruling reflects the constitutional complexity of regulating AI-generated political expression. Kansas legislators may need to build in robust satire and parody exemptions if they revisit this area.
Federal law does not fill the election deepfake gap in any targeted way. Federal election law addresses fraud and intentional misrepresentation in some circumstances, but no federal statute directly prohibits creating or distributing AI-generated political deepfakes without more.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Kansas has no statutory right of publicity and no AI voice cloning law. A person's name and likeness can be protected through Kansas common law misappropriation, which allows a claim when someone uses another's identity for commercial benefit without consent. That common law theory does not explicitly reach AI-generated voice replicas or synthetic likenesses created without commercial exploitation as the primary motive.
Tennessee's Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is the national reference point. Known as the ELVIS Act, it was the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protection explicitly to AI simulations of a person's voice and image. Kansas has not enacted a comparable statute.
The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a nationwide right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas. It has not passed either chamber of Congress and is not law. Do not rely on it for current protection.
For AI voice cloning used in robocalls, the FCC's 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) applies in Kansas. The FCC held that AI-generated voices constitute "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227), making AI voice-cloned calls to phones without prior express consent illegal nationwide. The FCC issued a $6 million fine (finalized September 2024) against the political consultant behind the fake-Biden robocalls in the 2024 New Hampshire primary under this rule.
For general questions about how Kansas regulates AI technology across industries, see Kansas AI laws, which covers the broader state-level AI regulatory landscape beyond deepfakes.
Federal Law That Applies in Kansas
Several federal laws apply to Kansas residents regardless of the gaps in state deepfake legislation.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the most significant. It created the first federal criminal prohibition on publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Penalties reach up to two years in prison for adults and three years when the victim is a minor. Platforms must remove content flagged by victims within 48 hours; the FTC enforces that obligation. Kansas victims of adult intimate deepfakes now have a direct federal avenue alongside KSA 21-6101(a)(8).
Federal CSAM law (18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B)) has covered computer-generated and AI-generated child sexual abuse images since the PROTECT Act of 2003. Section 2256 is definitional only; the offenses are charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252 and 2252A, which incorporate that definition. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) the Supreme Court held that virtual imagery not produced with a real minor is protected speech, so Congress narrowed the definition to material indistinguishable from a real minor, and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(c) still gives a defendant an affirmative defense that the material was produced using only adults or was not produced using any actual minor. Kansas's own KSA 21-5510 covers similar conduct at the state level, though the Kansas definition requires that an artificially generated depiction be obscene.
The FCC AI robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) applies nationwide, prohibiting AI voice-clone robocalls without prior express consent under the TCPA.
The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses using AI voice cloning or other AI tools. An extension to individual impersonation remains an unfinished proposed rulemaking. Families most often meet voice cloning as a scam call from someone who sounds like a grandchild or other relative in trouble; our guide to grandparent and family emergency scams lists the warning signs to look for before any money changes hands.
The DEFIANCE Act and NO FAKES Act are pending bills only. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) would create a federal civil remedy for sexual deepfake victims; the NO FAKES Act (S.4591) would create a federal voice and likeness right. The DEFIANCE Act passed the Senate on January 13, 2026, but awaits House action; the NO FAKES Act has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026). Neither is law. Always check their current status before citing them as legal protection.
What Victims Can Do
Kansas victims of deepfakes have several practical paths depending on the type of harm.
For intimate deepfakes of adults, victims can report to local law enforcement for prosecution under KSA 21-6101(a)(8), which is a felony. They can also file a complaint with the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. Separately, victims can submit a takedown notice directly to the platform hosting the content; under federal law, platforms must remove the content within 48 hours of notice. Both state and federal tracks can be pursued simultaneously.
For AI-generated CSAM, victims or their families should report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) CyberTipline and to local law enforcement. Kansas prosecutors can charge under KSA 21-5510, and federal prosecutors can proceed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, or 2252A, the charging statutes that incorporate the AI-CSAM definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B).
For election deepfakes, Kansas currently has no state statute, so victims of political deepfakes should consult with a campaign attorney about potential federal remedies under election fraud statutes and consider reporting to the Kansas Secretary of State or the Federal Election Commission.
For civil remedies, Kansas does not provide a statutory civil cause of action for adult NCII deepfakes. Common law misappropriation may apply when a deepfake is used for commercial purposes. The proposed DEFIANCE Act would create federal civil remedies if enacted. For AI-CSAM, federal law allows civil suits in certain circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
For recording and surveillance law questions, Kansas recording laws address when consent is required to record conversations, which is a related but distinct area of privacy law.
Kansas Deepfake Penalties
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing AI-generated intimate image of adult without consent (first offense, intent to harass/threaten/intimidate) | KSA 21-6101(a)(8) | Severity level 8 person felony |
| Distributing AI-generated intimate image of adult (repeat within 5 years) | KSA 21-6101(b)(2) | Severity level 5 person felony |
| Possession of AI-generated CSAM (artificially generated visual depiction of minor) | KSA 21-5510 | Felony (class varies by conduct) |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake of adult or minor (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if minor) |
| AI voice-clone robocalls without consent | TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17 | FCC enforcement; civil damages under TCPA |
| Election deepfake in political advertising | No Kansas law | Not currently a state crime in Kansas |
Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Kansas deepfake laws based on statutes verified as of June 9, 2026. This area of law is changing rapidly; always verify current law with official sources. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed Kansas attorney for advice about your specific situation.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
More Kansas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Kansas?
It depends on the type. Distributing an AI-generated intimate image of an identifiable adult without consent is a felony under KSA 21-6101(a)(8) when done with intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is a felony under KSA 21-5510. Kansas has no law targeting election deepfakes or AI voice cloning as of June 2026.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Kansas?
Yes, for adults. KSA 21-6101(a)(8), amended effective July 1, 2025, explicitly covers AI-generated or digitally altered intimate images of an identifiable person 18 or older distributed without consent with intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate. A first offense is a severity level 8 person felony. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) adds a separate federal crime for the same conduct.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Kansas?
Kansas does not have a statutory civil cause of action for adult NCII deepfakes. KSA 21-6101 is a criminal statute only. Common law misappropriation may apply in limited commercial-exploitation cases. The proposed federal DEFIANCE Act would create a civil remedy with liquidated damages of $150,000, or $250,000 in cases involving actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. It passed the Senate in January 2026 but has not become law. For AI-CSAM, federal civil remedies exist under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Kansas?
Kansas has no specific voice cloning law. Common law misappropriation may apply when a voice is used commercially without consent, but there is no right-of-publicity statute. Nationally, AI voice-cloned robocalls are illegal under the FCC's 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) and the TCPA. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act would extend national protection but is not yet law.
Does Kansas have an election deepfake law?
No. HB 2559 and SB 375, introduced in the 2023-24 Kansas legislative session to restrict AI-generated political advertising, both failed to pass. No election deepfake bill has been enacted through the 2025-26 session. Using AI to create a false depiction of a candidate in a political ad is not a state crime in Kansas.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in Kansas?
Yes, it applies in all 50 states including Kansas. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically criminalizing the publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes, punishable by up to two years in federal prison. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours or face FTC enforcement.
What does KSA 21-6101(a)(8) cover?
KSA 21-6101(a)(8), as amended by L. 2025, ch. 120 (effective July 1, 2025), prohibits distributing an AI-generated or digitally altered intimate image of an identifiable adult without that person's consent when the distributor intends to harass, threaten, or intimidate the depicted person. The statute explicitly covers fully synthetic images where the person was never involved in any source image.
Does Kansas law cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material?
Yes. KSA 21-5510 defines 'visual depiction' to include digital and computer-generated images and separately criminalizes possession of obscene 'artificially generated visual depictions' of minors, including those indistinguishable from a real child or morphed from one. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) also covers photorealistic AI CSAM and applies in Kansas alongside the state statute.
Updates
Corrected the federal AI-CSAM discussion: 18 U.S.C. § 2256 is a definitions section, so the page now names §§ 2251, 2252 and 2252A as the charging statutes, and the overstated claim that no First Amendment defense applies was replaced with the actual posture under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the § 2252A(c) affirmative defense.
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.
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6101Breach of privacy.In forcecited in 27 of our articles
(a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority: (1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication; (2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in transmitting such message; (3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Recent Kansas decisions construe the image-dissemination subsection, K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8), not the interception subsections. State v. Ivy (2025) held a reasonable expectation of privacy under that subsection has a subjective and an objective component. State v. Jamil (2026), unpublished, found disseminating needs no jury definition.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ivy (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)✓Ivy posted on Snapchat a sexual video his ex-girlfriend had recorded and texted him during their relationship; the court applied a subjective and objective two-part test and held a jury could find she kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, affirming the conviction.
- In re Belcher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2024, 552 P.3d 1213)“…deotape, photograph, film or image obtained in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) or (a)(8), and amendments…”
- State v. Jamil (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)✓Jamil secretly filmed a woman undressed and unconscious at his home, then sent the videos to her boyfriend; the court held that sharing with a single recipient can be disseminating under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) and that intent to harass could be inferred from his conduct.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Audio Recording Laws, Kansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Kansas Phone Call Recording Laws
§ 21-5510Sexual exploitation of a child.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in K.S.A. 21-5610 and 21-5611, and amendments thereto, sexual exploitation of a child is: (1) Employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing a child under 18 years of age, or a person whom the offender believes to be a child under 18 years of age, to engage in sexually explicit conduct with the intent to promote any performance; (2) (A) possessing any visual depiction of a child under 18 years of age shown or heard engaging in sexually explicit conduct with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest of the offender or any other person; or (B) possessing any artificially generated visual depiction with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest of the offender or any other person; (3) being a parent, guardian or other person having custody or control of a child under l8 years of age and knowingly permitting such child to engage in, or assist another to engage in, sexually explicit conduct for any purpose described in subsection (a)(1) or (2); or (4) promoting any performance that includes sexually explicit conduct by a child under 18 years of age, or a person whom…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kansas courts have construed K.S.A. 21-5510 in prosecutions. State v. Sanders (2025) held it was not unconstitutional as applied to a coach who enticed a 16 year old to send explicit images, since one past the age of consent is still a child under it. State v. Jones (2021) held the State need not prove the defendant knew the child's age.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sanders (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025, 563 P.3d 234)✓A volleyball coach convicted under 21-5510 for enticing nude photos from a 16-year-old player and possessing a video of her argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied because she could consent to sex. The court held a person over 16 is still a child under the statute.
- State v. Grant (Supreme Court of Kansas 2025)“…SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 21-5510 expressly incorporates by reference the…”
- John Doe v. M.J. (Supreme Court of Kansas 2022, 508 P.3d 368)“…defined in K.S.A. 21-3516, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5510, and amendments thereto;…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Kansas Expungement Laws: K.S.A. 21-6614 Eligibility, Waiting Periods, and Filing Steps, Kansas AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 56 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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)
§ 2255Civil remedy for personal injuriesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000, and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The court may also award punitive damages and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate. There shall be no time limit for the filing of a complaint commencing an action under this section. Any action brought under subsection (a) may be brought in the district court of the United States that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 of title 28. In an action brought under subsection (a), process may be served in any district in which the defendant— is an inhabitant; or may be found.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 752 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Dost (District Court, S.D. California 1986, 636 F. Supp. 828)“…minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 : For the purposes of this chapt…”
- Sheldon Stephens v. Kevin Clash (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2015, 796 F.3d 281)“…ability, not later than three years after the disability.” 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (b) (2012). 3 Missing from this text i…”
- Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 828 F.3d 159)“…on August 23, 2013, Doe filed the present civil suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 against a purported class of defendants…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Class Action Adds Stability AI as a Defendant Over Alleged AI-Generated CSAM, Teens Sue xAI Over Grok's Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
§ 2251Sexual exploitation of childrenIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,812 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Irey (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2010, 612 F.3d 1160)“…iled on December 13, 2006, Irey was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (c). The indictment alleged that he “di…”
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)“…ether the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), 18 U. S. C. § 2251 et seq., abridges the freedom of sp…”
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)“…But as in the criminalization of pornography production at 18 U. S. C. § 2251 , see infra, at 76, n. 5, the perpetr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026), Arkansas Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 2252ACertain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornographyIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
Any person who— knowingly mails, or transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography; knowingly receives or distributes— any child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or any material that contains child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; knowingly— reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,530 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Williams (2008) held that Section 2252A(a)(3)(B), the pandering and solicitation provision, is neither overbroad under the First Amendment nor unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Pugh (2008) applied the section at sentencing, holding a probation-only sentence for possession unreasonable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted in a chat room offering 'good' pictures of his toddler daughter for swaps and linked to images of real children; the Supreme Court held 2252A(a)(3)(B), which bans offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography, is neither overbroad nor vague.
- United States v. Pugh (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2008, 515 F.3d 1179)✓Pugh pleaded guilty under 2252A(a)(5)(B) to possessing 68 images and two videos of child pornography he obtained by posing as a girl in chat rooms; the Eleventh Circuit held the five-year probation sentence, with no prison and no supervised release, substantively unreasonable.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓Adult entertainment producers, a nudist publisher and artists challenged the CPPA definitions reaching images that 'appear to be' or 'convey the impression' of minors; the Supreme Court held both definitions, which widened what 2252A reaches, facially overbroad.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Hawaii Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Minnesota Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 39 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 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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 54 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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.
- Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1996, 928 S.W.2d 922)✓A woman sued over a book that named her and printed her childhood photo, and over a related TV film; the Court of Appeals held the Personal Rights Protection Act sets no limitations period of its own, applied the one year period, and affirmed summary judgment.
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
- KSA 21-6101 - Breach of privacy (AI-generated intimate images, amended L. 2025, ch. 120)(kslegislature.gov).gov
- KSA 21-5510 - Sexual exploitation of a child (covers artificially generated visual depictions)(kslegislature.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 covering AI-generated CSAM (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17 - AI-generated voices in robocalls declared artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 CFR Part 461 (effective April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- DEFIANCE Act, S.1837, 119th Congress (proposed - not enacted)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2252A - Federal child pornography charging statute, including the subsection (c) affirmative defense(govinfo.gov)