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

Maryland now has three targeted deepfake laws: criminal and civil liability for nonconsensual intimate deepfakes under Criminal Law § 3-809 (effective July 1, 2025), an election deepfake prohibition under Election Law § 16-905 (SB 141, effective June 1, 2026), and an AI identity fraud law (SB 8, effective October 1, 2026). Commercial voice cloning and likeness protection remain a gap; no Maryland ELVIS Act equivalent has passed.

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

It depends on the category. Maryland does not have a single omnibus deepfake statute, but three distinct legal buckets cover the most harmful uses.

Nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults are a crime under Criminal Law § 3-809. Using election deepfakes to deceive voters is a crime under Election Law § 16-905, effective June 1, 2026. AI-generated sexual imagery of minors is criminalized under Criminal Law § 11-208. Outside these three areas, creating a deepfake is not automatically a crime in Maryland. Non-intimate, non-electoral deepfakes (parody, satire, artistic uses) generally remain outside criminal liability, though common-law defamation and false-light invasion of privacy claims may still apply.

Voice cloning for commercial purposes is a notable gap: Maryland has no ELVIS Act-style right-of-publicity statute that specifically targets unauthorized AI voice replicas. That gap narrows on October 1, 2026, when the state's new AI identity fraud law (SB 8, Chapter 445 of 2026) takes effect, though that law targets harmful impersonation rather than commercial likeness rights.

Maryland's deepfake laws interact with its broader Maryland Recording Laws framework. The state requires all-party consent for audio recording of private conversations, and that same concern for unauthorized capture of a person's voice and image shapes how Maryland courts analyze deepfake-adjacent privacy claims.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

Maryland's primary NCII statute, Criminal Law § 3-809, was significantly strengthened by SB 360 (Chapter 219, signed April 22, 2025, effective July 1, 2025). The amendment expanded the definition of "visual representation" to include computer-generated depictions (created with or without using existing images of the person) that are indistinguishable from the depicted person to an ordinary observer.

The prohibited conduct is knowing distribution of an intimate image of an identifiable person where three elements are all met: the distributor intended to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person; the distributor knew the person did not consent to the distribution (or recklessly disregarded the lack of consent); and the person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private. The criminal penalty is a misdemeanor: up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000, or both.

SB 360 also authorizes a civil cause of action. Victims may sue for compensatory damages and the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. This civil remedy is significant because it allows victims to pursue relief even when criminal prosecution is not pursued.

For minors, Criminal Law § 11-208 provides a separate and stricter framework. It expressly covers a computer-generated image "created, adapted, or modified to appear as an actual and identifiable child" engaged in sexual conduct. A first offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. A second conviction is a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings are excluded from both statutes.

Election and Political Deepfakes

Maryland criminalized election deepfakes with SB 141 (Chapter 444 of 2026), which took effect June 1, 2026. A first attempt, SB 361 of 2025, passed both chambers but died at the end of the 2025 session without final action on the conference committee report. The enacted law adds Election Law § 16-905, which defines a deepfake as an image, audio recording, or video recording intentionally created or manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction of a person.

The prohibition targets persons who knowingly, or with reckless disregard, create, use, or disseminate a deepfake that produces materially false information with intent to deceive voters about casting a ballot, voting for or against a candidate or ballot issue, election facts, or ballot petitions, where the conduct causes or is intended to cause harm. A violation of § 16-905 is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $5,000, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. The law also requires the State Administrator of Elections to publicly correct reported election misinformation and lets the State Board seek removal injunctions and damages.

A First Amendment caveat applies to all election deepfake laws. In August 2025, a federal court struck down California's election deepfake statute (AB 2839) in its entirety and permanently enjoined its enforcement in Kohls v. Bonta, signaling serious constitutional risk for laws that restrict political speech too broadly. Maryland's law requires knowledge or reckless disregard, intent to deceive voters, and resulting harm, which narrows its scope and may provide some insulation from a similar challenge, but that risk cannot be dismissed.

Satire and parody are expressly exempt from § 16-905, and broadcasters, news publications, and online platforms covered by Section 230 have statutory safe harbors. Clearly labeled satire or commentary would not normally trigger liability.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

Maryland has no standalone right-of-publicity statute that covers AI voice cloning or unauthorized digital replicas of a person's likeness for commercial use. This is a meaningful gap compared to states like Tennessee, whose ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) was the first law in the country to extend right-of-publicity protection specifically to AI voice simulations. Tennessee's ELVIS Act is the national reference point for this category of legislation.

In Maryland, voice cloning has not been addressed by statute outside the narrow bands of election deception and intimate-image distribution. That changes on October 1, 2026: SB 8 (cross-filed as HB 184) was enacted as Chapter 445 of 2026 and extends Maryland's identity fraud law to impersonation using AI and deepfake representations, with penalties up to 5 years and a $10,000 fine for a single victim, or 10 years and $15,000 when multiple victims are involved. It is a criminal impersonation statute, not a commercial right of publicity.

For now, Maryland residents and businesses relying on voice or likeness protections must look to contract law, common-law misappropriation of identity claims, and federal trade-secret or unfair-competition theories. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses via AI voice cloning, and the FCC's February 2024 ruling makes AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under the TCPA.

For a broader view of how Maryland regulates AI tools generally, see Maryland AI Laws and Regulation, which covers the state's AI policy framework beyond deepfake-specific statutes. The deepfake laws discussed here are narrower criminal and civil provisions layered on top of that general framework.

Federal Law That Applies in Maryland

Federal law provides a floor of protection for Maryland residents, independent of state statutes.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically criminalizing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults and minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." It carries up to 2 years in prison (3 years if the victim is a minor). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice request; that compliance deadline took effect May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the platform-removal obligation. This federal layer applies in Maryland on top of, and independently from, § 3-809.

Federal law also covers AI-generated CSAM under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) and (11) (PROTECT Act, 2003). Computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor are treated identically to actual child sexual abuse material; there is no First Amendment defense for indistinguishable material.

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 (or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The 118th-Congress version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House; the 119th-Congress version passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House. The DEFIANCE Act is not yet enacted law.

The NO FAKES Act (S.1367, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas. It has not passed either chamber and is proposed legislation only.

For background on the DEFIANCE Act's progress through Congress, see our coverage at news/defiance-act-deepfake-porn-victims-right-to-sue.

What Victims Can Do

Maryland victims of intimate deepfakes have several avenues. First, criminal complaint: distribution of an AI-generated intimate image without consent is a misdemeanor under § 3-809 and should be reported to local law enforcement or the Maryland State Police. Law enforcement can refer cases to the state's attorney for prosecution.

Second, civil lawsuit: SB 360 explicitly authorizes a civil cause of action under § 3-809. Victims may sue the distributor for compensatory damages. Courts may also award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff, lowering the practical barrier to pursuing a civil claim.

Third, platform takedown: under the TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal, effective May 2025), victims can submit a removal request directly to the hosting platform. Platforms must act within 48 hours. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates a reporting portal under the Act. This mechanism is available regardless of whether the state criminal prosecution is pursued.

Fourth, for election deepfakes: reports may be filed with the Maryland State Board of Elections, which reviews submissions and can refer them to the State Prosecutor. Starting June 1, 2026, misuse of deepfakes to deceive voters is a criminal offense under Election Law § 16-905.

Victims should also consult the Maryland Data Privacy Laws framework, which may provide additional avenues for data-based claims, particularly if a commercial entity collected or processed biometric or image data without authorization.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Maryland deepfake statutes and is not legal advice. Deepfake and AI law is evolving rapidly: new bills, court decisions, and enforcement actions can change the landscape quickly. If you believe you are a victim of a deepfake crime or need advice specific to your situation, consult a licensed Maryland attorney.

More Maryland Laws

• Maryland AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Maryland Alimony Laws
• Maryland At-Will Employment Laws
• Maryland Car Accident Laws
• Maryland Car Seat Laws
• Maryland Child Custody Laws
• Maryland Child Support Laws
• Maryland Common Law Marriage Laws
• Maryland Data Privacy Laws
• Maryland Divorce Laws
• Maryland Dog Bite Laws
• Maryland Emancipation Laws
• Maryland Expungement Laws
• Maryland Hit and Run Laws
• Maryland Landlord-Tenant Laws
• Maryland Lemon Laws

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

Sources

See the citations below for primary sources cited on this page.