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

Massachusetts criminalizes sexual deepfakes under M.G.L. ch. 265, § 43A, enacted as part of the 2024 Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation (Ch. 118 of the Acts of 2024, effective September 18, 2024). The law explicitly covers AI-generated and computer-altered images through a broad "digitization" definition. Massachusetts has no election deepfake law in force, and its right of publicity statute (M.G.L. ch. 214, § 3A) does not cover voice cloning.

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

Massachusetts law targets three distinct deepfake buckets with uneven coverage. The sexual and intimate bucket is the strongest: distributing a nonconsensual intimate deepfake is a criminal offense under M.G.L. ch. 265, § 43A. The election and political bucket has no active law, only pending legislation. The voice cloning and digital likeness bucket is unaddressed by statute, leaving victims to rely on federal rules and limited common law.

Notably, Massachusetts was among the last states in the country to enact an intimate deepfake law. Before September 2024 the state had no criminal statute covering nonconsensual intimate images at all. The 2024 Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation (Ch. 118) filled that gap and went further than many earlier state laws by expressly reaching AI-generated content through the digitization definition.

Creating a deepfake for private purposes (without distributing it) is not addressed by current state criminal law. Distribution with reckless disregard for the subject's lack of consent is the triggering conduct under § 43A.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

The core prohibition lives in M.G.L. ch. 265, § 43A. It is unlawful to distribute visual material depicting an identifiable person who is nude, partially nude, or engaged in sexual conduct when the distribution is done intentionally or with reckless disregard for the person's lack of consent and causes emotional distress or other injury.

"Visual material" expressly includes material produced by digitization. "Digitization" means the creation or alteration of visual material, including through the use of computer-generated images, in a manner that would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic representation of the person depicted. That definition squarely covers AI-generated deepfakes: a synthetic nude image of a real person is prohibited even if no actual photograph of the person undressed ever existed.

The statute also makes clear that consent to the creation of visual material does not constitute consent to its distribution. So an image generated with the subject's knowledge can still give rise to criminal liability if later shared without fresh consent.

For minors, M.G.L. ch. 272, § 29D (added by the same 2024 Act) creates a juvenile-track adjudication for minors who distribute intimate images of other minors. Young people adjudicated under § 29D are not required to register as sex offenders and are eligible for record expungement, reflecting a rehabilitative rather than punitive approach for peer-to-peer teen cases.

The existing child sexual abuse material statute, M.G.L. ch. 272, § 29C, uses the phrase "depiction by computer" but predates generative AI and lacks language specific to AI-created CSAM. Pending bills S.1174 and H.1593 would strengthen that coverage, but neither had passed as of June 2026. Federal law fills the gap: 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B), enacted through the PROTECT Act of 2003, covers computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from those of a real minor. That prong is not absolute: 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(c) gives a defendant an affirmative defense that the material was not produced using any actual minor, and that defense is withheld only for morphed images of an identifiable minor under § 2256(8)(C).

Election and Political Deepfakes

Massachusetts has no operative election deepfake law as of June 2026. The state's 2024 temporary election deepfake provision expired before any statewide election was held.

In February 2026 the Massachusetts House passed two separate bills. H.5093 ("An Act to Protect Against Election Misinformation") would prohibit distributing materially deceptive AI-generated media depicting a candidate within 90 days of an election. H.5094 would require political advertisements containing AI-generated content to carry a disclosure stating the ad "contains content generated by AI," with violations subject to fines up to $1,000. As of June 2026 both bills were in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means and had not been signed into law.

First Amendment caution applies here. A California election deepfake law (AB 2839) was enjoined in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds, illustrating the constitutional tension in laws that restrict political speech. Any Massachusetts election deepfake law, once enacted, may face similar litigation.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

Massachusetts has a statutory right of publicity, M.G.L. ch. 214, § 3A, which allows a person to sue over unauthorized use of their name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade purposes. The statute does not mention voice, and it does not extend to the breadth of voice and likeness claims that modern AI simulations raise. There is no Massachusetts equivalent of the Tennessee ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., eff. July 1, 2024), which was the first state law to extend publicity rights to AI voice simulations and remains the national reference point for this type of legislation.

Practically, this means a Massachusetts-based victim of AI voice cloning has no clear state criminal remedy. Civil claims would need to fit within M.G.L. ch. 214, § 3A, which requires commercial use of a name, portrait, or picture and says nothing about voice, leaving many AI voice-cloning harms without a clear state remedy. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) and the FCC's 2024 ruling on AI robocalls provide some federal coverage for commercial misuse, but neither addresses the full range of voice-cloning harms.

For victims whose voice or likeness is used in sexually explicit deepfakes, the § 43A intimate-image law would apply if the material is distributed without consent.

Federal Law That Applies in Massachusetts

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) was signed into law on May 19, 2025, as the first federal law directly targeting intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, and expressly covers AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in federal prison, three years if the victim is a minor. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of receiving a victim notice, an obligation in effect since May 19, 2026. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform-removal obligation.

The DEFIANCE Act, which would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages up to $150,000 ($250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment), passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 (S.1837, 119th Congress) and remains pending in the House (H.R.3562). The 118th-Congress version also passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. The DEFIANCE Act is proposed legislation, not current law.

The NO FAKES Act (S.4591/H.R.8915, 119th Congress), which would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI digital replicas of voice and likeness, is also proposed only and has not passed either chamber.

The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act treats AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial" voices, making unsolicited AI voice-clone calls illegal without prior express consent. The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses using AI-generated voice or media.

For AI-generated CSAM, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) under the PROTECT Act covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from those of a real minor, subject to the affirmative defense in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(c) that no actual minor was used to produce the material.

What Victims Can Do

Victims of sexual deepfakes in Massachusetts have three main avenues. First, report to law enforcement: M.G.L. ch. 265, § 43A is a criminal offense. Police and district attorneys can pursue charges; the state Attorney General's office has also publicly urged tech companies to remove deepfake NCII content.

Second, use the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act's platform-removal mechanism. Since May 2025, victims can submit a notice to any covered platform and the platform must remove the content within 48 hours. This applies regardless of whether the content is hosted on a Massachusetts server.

Third, pursue civil remedies. The 2024 Act also amended Chapter 209A (the domestic abuse prevention statute) to define "abuse" to include nonconsensual intimate image sharing, enabling victims to seek civil protective orders. Section 43A itself creates criminal penalties only, although it expressly preserves other remedies available at law or in equity. Common law tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy) may also apply depending on the facts.

For election deepfakes, because no Massachusetts law is currently in force, victims are limited to platform reporting and federal remedies. The TAKE IT DOWN Act does not cover election deepfakes; it is limited to intimate images.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Massachusetts deepfake laws as of June 2026. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area change rapidly; consult a licensed Massachusetts attorney for guidance on your specific situation.

More Massachusetts Laws

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