Missouri
Missouri Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Missouri has no enacted deepfake-specific law for adults as of mid-2026. Repeated legislative efforts, including the 2024 "Taylor Swift Act" (HB 2573) and the 2026 House-passed HB 1887, failed to clear both chambers and reach the governor's desk. AI-generated CSAM covering minors is prohibited under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010. For adult victims, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 2025) now provides the primary remedy, requiring platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate deepfakes within 48 hours.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Missouri?
It depends on what the deepfake depicts and who is in it. Missouri does not have a statute that expressly prohibits creating or distributing deepfake sexual images of adults. Legislators have tried repeatedly: HB 2573 in 2024, tagged the "Taylor Swift Act" after non-consensual deepfakes of the artist went viral, proposed both criminal penalties and civil remedies but never advanced past committee. In 2026, HB 1887 passed the Missouri House 145-3 in April before stalling in the Senate without a floor vote.
That gap matters in practice. A person who uses AI to fabricate a sexually explicit image of a Missouri adult and posts it online has not committed a state crime specifically targeting that conduct, at least under current law. The victim's options at the state level are limited: Missouri's § 573.110 (revenge porn) requires that the perpetrator "obtained" the image, language that points to real photographs rather than AI-generated fabrications. Missouri's § 565.252 (invasion of privacy) similarly requires unauthorized capture of an authentic image.
The three buckets Missouri law addresses, partially or not at all:
- Sexual and intimate deepfakes of adults: Not covered by any state deepfake statute. Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act applies.
- AI-generated child sexual abuse material: Covered under § 573.010 via language reaching computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor.
- Election and political deepfakes: Not covered. A 2024 bill targeting political deepfakes also did not pass.
- Voice cloning and digital likeness: No statutory right of publicity; common law only.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Missouri adults are not protected by an explicit state deepfake-NCII statute. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act now provides the most direct remedy. Signed on May 19, 2025, as Public Law 119-12, it makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of any person, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison, or three years if the victim is a minor.
On the civil side, the proposed DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 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. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but it is still pending in the House as of June 2026 and is not yet law.
For minors, Missouri is on firmer ground. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010(4)(b) defines prohibited child pornography to include "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." That language reaches AI-generated CSAM without requiring a separate deepfake statute. Federal law ((8)(B)) provides parallel coverage. Creating, distributing, or possessing AI-generated CSAM is a serious felony under both state and federal law.
Missouri's § 573.110 does make it a Class D felony to disclose authentic intimate images with intent to harass. A victim can also sue civilly for a minimum of $10,000. But the statute requires the defendant to have "obtained" the image, a phrase that ties liability to real photographs rather than AI-generated fabrications. Until the legislature updates that language or passes a standalone deepfake bill, adult victims of AI-generated intimate images face a state-law gap.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Missouri has no enacted election deepfake law. A 2024 bill that would have required disclaimers on political deepfakes within 90 days of an election passed the House but never cleared the Senate. No comparable measure became law in 2026.
The absence of state law means Missouri candidates, officeholders, and political figures have no state-level remedy specific to deepfakes in political advertising. First Amendment concerns have complicated election deepfake laws nationally: a federal court struck down California's AB 2839 in its entirety and permanently enjoined it on First Amendment grounds in August 2025 (Kohls v. Bonta), illustrating why these laws are legally contested even where enacted.
Federal election law under requires disclaimers on political communications and can reach deceptive AI-generated ads through existing FEC authority, though enforcement is limited.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Missouri has no statutory right of publicity. Protection for voice cloning and unauthorized AI likeness use rests entirely on common law, specifically the common law tort of misappropriation of name or likeness, which Missouri courts recognize but which has narrower reach than a statutory framework.
Compare this to Tennessee, whose ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) expressly extends the right of publicity to AI simulations of a person's voice and is the national reference point for voice-clone legislation. Missouri has no equivalent. A musician, actor, or public figure whose voice is cloned by AI for commercial use without consent would need to sue in tort under common law, a more uncertain path than a statutory cause of action.
The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI digital replicas, including voice. As of June 2026, it has not passed either chamber and remains a proposal.
The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) does prohibit AI voice cloning used to deceptively impersonate government entities or businesses. The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) makes AI-generated voices in robocalls "artificial" under the TCPA, so voice-clone robocalls without prior express consent are illegal federally. These rules protect against fraud and scam calls but do not give individuals a general right of action for commercial voice cloning.
This page covers deepfake and AI voice law specifically. For broader AI regulation in Missouri, including the attorney general's algorithmic choice rule and pending AI liability bills, see Missouri AI Laws and Regulation.
Federal Law That Applies in Missouri
Because Missouri's state-law coverage is thin, federal law carries more weight here than in states with comprehensive deepfake statutes.
TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12): The most significant. Enacted May 19, 2025, it is now a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate depictions, real or AI-generated. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice; the FTC enforces the removal obligation. This is Missouri victims' primary legal tool for adult intimate deepfakes.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)): AI-generated images "indistinguishable" from a real minor in sexually explicit conduct are federally prohibited under the PROTECT Act. This runs in parallel with Missouri's § 573.010 coverage.
FCC AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17): AI voice clones in robocalls to phones are "artificial" voices under the TCPA. Unsolicited AI-voice calls violate federal law regardless of state statute.
FTC Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461): Prohibits AI voice fraud used to impersonate government bodies or businesses.
DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) and NO FAKES Act (S.4591): Neither is law as of June 2026. The DEFIANCE Act, which would add a civil right of action for intimate deepfake victims, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and now awaits a House vote. The NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal right of publicity for AI voice and likeness, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026).
For more on how the DEFIANCE Act would affect victims, see our DEFIANCE Act coverage.
What Victims Can Do
Missouri victims of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes have fewer state-law tools than residents of the 40-plus states that have enacted deepfake NCII statutes. Here is what is available.
File a federal complaint: The TAKE IT DOWN Act is enforced by the FTC. Victims can report violations at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Because the law requires platforms to remove content within 48 hours of notice, filing a takedown notice with the platform is the fastest first step.
Use the platform's TAKE IT DOWN removal system: As of May 19, 2026 (one year after enactment), platforms covered by the law must have a functioning mechanism to accept and process victim takedown requests within 48 hours. If a platform fails to comply, that is itself an FTC enforcement matter.
Report to law enforcement: If the deepfake involves a minor, it is a serious felony under § 573.010 and federal CSAM statutes. Contact local law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) via CyberTipline.org.
Civil tort claims: Missouri recognizes the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Deepfake intimate images distributed to harass a victim can support an IIED claim. The threshold is high (conduct must be extreme and outrageous), but the claim exists without a statutory deepfake law.
Invasion of privacy (§ 565.252): If an authentic underlying image was used (for example, an existing photo was manipulated), § 565.252 may apply if the original capture was unauthorized. The distribution prong makes it a Class E felony.
Attorney consultation: Given Missouri's thin statutory coverage, a plaintiff's attorney with experience in cyber-harassment or privacy torts is the best guide to viable claims in the current legal landscape.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| AI-generated child sexual abuse material | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010 (definitions); 18 U.S.C. § 2256 | Missouri felony under Chapter 573 (specific class not established by the definitions section); federal felony |
| Distributing authentic intimate images to harass | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110 | Class D felony (up to 7 yrs); min. $10,000 civil damages |
| Unauthorized capture/distribution of authentic nude images | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 | Class E felony (up to 4 yrs) w/ distribution |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate depiction (real or AI) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | Up to 2 yrs prison (3 yrs if minor) |
| AI voice-clone robocalls without consent | TCPA / FCC 24-17 (federal) | FCC enforcement; civil penalties |
| AI impersonation of government or business | FTC Impersonation Rule (federal) | FTC enforcement action |
| Deepfake intimate images of adults (no state law) | No Missouri statute | No state criminal or civil remedy under current law |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Missouri and federal laws related to deepfakes and AI-generated images. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly. If you are a victim or face legal questions, consult a licensed Missouri attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Sources
The citations below identify the primary legal sources relied on for this page. Missouri statutes are available at revisor.mo.gov; federal bills and enacted laws at congress.gov.
For the intersection of Missouri's recording consent rules and surveillance technology, see Missouri Recording Laws. For Missouri's broader data and privacy legal landscape, see Missouri Data Privacy Laws.
More Missouri Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Missouri?
It depends on the content and who it depicts. Missouri has no enacted state law specifically criminalizing deepfake intimate images of adults as of mid-2026. Creating or distributing AI-generated CSAM involving minors is a serious felony under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010. For adults, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, but there is currently no parallel state statute.
What happened to Missouri's Taylor Swift Act?
HB 2573, nicknamed the 'Taylor Swift Act,' was introduced in 2024 to create civil remedies for victims of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It did not pass. A new set of bills in 2026, including HB 1887, also failed to clear both chambers. Missouri remains one of the few states without an enacted adult deepfake NCII law.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Missouri?
Not under any Missouri-specific statute as of mid-2026. Distributing authentic (real photograph-based) intimate images to harass is a Class D felony under § 573.110, but that law requires the perpetrator to have 'obtained' the image, which on its face covers real photos rather than AI fabrications. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act does cover nonconsensual intimate AI images and is currently the primary remedy.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Missouri?
Missouri has no deepfake-specific civil statute for adults. You may have claims under common law torts such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy if an authentic image was used as a base. Victims of AI-generated intimate images may also have recourse under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act through FTC complaint. An attorney experienced in cyber-harassment or privacy torts can assess what claims apply to your situation.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Missouri?
Missouri has no statutory right of publicity and no ELVIS Act-style voice cloning law. Using someone's AI-cloned voice without consent for commercial purposes may support a common law misappropriation claim, but it is not a crime under state law. Federal law prohibits AI voice clones in unsolicited robocalls (FCC 24-17) and in scams that impersonate government entities or businesses (FTC Impersonation Rule).
What is Missouri's election deepfake law?
Missouri has none. A 2024 bill requiring disclaimers on political deepfakes within 90 days of an election passed the House but died in the Senate. As of mid-2026, Missouri has no state law requiring disclosure of AI-generated political content or criminalizing election-related deepfakes.
Does federal law protect Missouri residents from deepfakes?
Yes, particularly for intimate images. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 2025) makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI deepfakes, and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. AI-generated CSAM is also covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2256. These federal laws apply in Missouri regardless of the state law gap.
How does Missouri compare to other states on deepfake law?
Missouri is among the most significant gap states. Most states, over 40 as of 2026, have enacted at least one deepfake NCII statute. Missouri joins a short list, including New Mexico, that have none specifically covering adult intimate deepfakes. Missouri also lacks a statutory right of publicity and an election deepfake law, making it one of the thinner-covered states overall.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against current primary sources.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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
Removed a false penalty-range anchor: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010 is a definitions-only section with no felony classification, so the Penalties-at-a-Glance table no longer attributes a 'Class B-D felony (1-15 yrs)' range to it.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 6 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
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) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285) · Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234) · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)
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), Alabama Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 52
§ 30120Publication and distribution of statements and solicitationsIn force
Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 30104(f)(3) of this title), such communication— if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or 1 So in original. The word “or” probably should appear at the end of par. (2).
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 8 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases: Pursuing America's Greatness v. Federal Election Commission (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2016, 831 F.3d 500) · James Blassingame v. Donald Trump (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2023, 87 F.4th 1) · Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2018, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-31 · Read the full section at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021
Leading cases: United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484) · T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915) · United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026)
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 573
§ 573.010Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean: (1) "Adult cabaret", a nightclub, bar, juice bar, restaurant, bottle club, or other commercial establishment, regardless of whether alcoholic beverages are served, which regularly features persons who appear semi-nude; (2) "Characterized by", describing the essential character or dominant theme of an item; (3) "Child", any person under the age of fourteen; (4) "Child pornography": (a) Any obscene material or performance depicting sexual conduct, sexual contact as defined in section 566.010, or a sexual performance and which has as one of its participants or portrays as an observer of such conduct, contact, or performance a minor; or (b) Any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where: a. The production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; b. Such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-31 · Read the full section at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases: State v. Hagan (Missouri Court of Appeals 2002, 79 S.W.3d 447) · State v. Strughold (Missouri Court of Appeals 1998, 973 S.W.2d 876) · State v. McKinney (Supreme Court of Missouri 1988, 756 S.W.2d 527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 573.110Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — definitions — elements — exemptions — immunity from liability, when — penalty — private cause of action, when.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. As used in this section and section 573.112, the following terms mean: (1) "Computer", a device that accepts, processes, stores, retrieves, or outputs data and includes, but is not limited to, auxiliary storage and telecommunications devices connected to computers; (2) "Computer program", a series of coded instructions or statements in a form acceptable to a computer that causes the computer to process data and supply the results of the data processing; (3) "Data", a representation in any form of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions including, but not limited to, program documentation, that is prepared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and is stored or processed in or transmitted by a computer or in a system or network. Data is considered property and may be in any form including, but not limited to, printouts, magnetic or optical storage media, punch cards, data stored internally in the memory of the computer, or data stored externally that is accessible by the computer; (4) "Image", a photograph, film, videotape, digital recording, or other depiction or portrayal of an object, including a human body; (5) "Intimate parts", the fully…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-31 · Read the full section at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Anthony Madison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026) · Gray (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025) · Soule v. Langley Recycling, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2020)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Video Recording Laws: Public Spaces, Private Property, and Consent Rules, Missouri Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections, Missouri Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 47-25-1101Short title.In forcecited in 47 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984.”
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2021-05-21 · Read the full section at archive.org
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
Leading cases: Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497) · STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89) · State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)
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
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010 - Child pornography definitions (computer-generated images)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110 - Nonconsensual disclosure of private sexual images(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 - Invasion of privacy (unauthorized intimate images)(revisor.mo.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 CSAM definitions including computer-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 - AI-generated voices in robocalls are artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 461 (effective April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov