Montana
Montana 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 9, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Montana is one of the most active states in the country on deepfake legislation. As of 2025, the state has enacted five separate laws covering nonconsensual intimate images, a standalone crime of disclosing explicit synthetic media, AI-generated child sexual abuse material, election deepfakes, and the right to control your own voice and digital likeness. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (May 2025) adds a national layer on top.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Montana?
Yes, in several important contexts. Montana law divides its prohibitions across three buckets: sexual and intimate deepfakes, election deepfakes, and unauthorized commercial use of a person's voice or likeness.
What is NOT automatically covered: a deepfake that is clearly satirical, used for commentary or news reporting, or that does not involve an intimate image and does not falsely portray a candidate is unlikely to be criminal under current state law. Montana's HB 513 includes explicit First Amendment carve-outs for news, commentary, and parody.
If you share a realistic, non-disclosed AI image of someone in a sexual context, use a deepfake of a real candidate in a political ad without labeling it, or build a commercial AI tool that clones someone's voice without permission, Montana law likely applies.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Montana's primary NCII statute is , which covers privacy in communications. Its deepfake provisions were added by HB 514 (Ch. 686, Laws of 2025), signed May 13, 2025, and effective October 1, 2025. The statute now expressly covers "digitally fabricated" intimate images, defined as media produced "using technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to create media that realistically misrepresents an identifiable individual." The law targets publication, distribution, or disclosure of such images to extort money or to cause harm.
Penalties under the expanded statute scale with repeat conduct. A first violation is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a felony carrying up to 5 years in Montana State Prison and fines up to $25,000. Criminal enforcement is the primary remedy; HB 514 does not create an independent civil cause of action.
Montana also created a standalone crime of disclosing explicit synthetic media. SB 413, signed May 12, 2025, and effective immediately on signing, is codified at . It criminalizes knowingly disclosing an explicit deepfake of an identifiable person when the discloser knows or should know the person did not consent and that disclosure would cause substantial emotional distress, disclosing with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, or threatening disclosure to extort money or other value. A first offense carries a fine of up to $1,000, up to 1 year in county jail, or both. A second or subsequent offense carries a fine of up to $10,000, up to 5 years in state prison, or both. If the person depicted is under 18, the maximum rises to 10 years in state prison.
For minors, was amended by HB 82 (signed April 7, 2025; effective July 1, 2025) to explicitly criminalize computer-generated CSAM, including AI-fabricated depictions of children. The bill responds directly to documented cases of Montana children's images being manipulated by AI tools. It is not a defense that the depicted child is actually an adult or a law enforcement officer.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Montana SB 25, enacted during the 2025 legislative session, addresses AI-generated election content. The law prohibits any person, committee, corporation, political party, or entity working in an official election capacity from distributing a deepfake of a candidate or political party within 60 days before voting begins, unless the communication clearly discloses that the image, audio, video, or other media has been substantially altered by artificial intelligence.
Complaints go to the Commissioner of Political Practices. A first sufficiency finding carries civil penalties under MCA 13-37-128. A second sufficiency finding must be referred for misdemeanor prosecution, punishable by a fine of up to $500, up to 6 months in county jail, or both. A third or subsequent finding must be referred for felony prosecution, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, up to 2 years in state prison, or both. The law also allows aggrieved candidates and political parties to seek expedited injunctive relief, actual damages, and up to $10,000 in punitive damages, plus costs and attorney fees.
SB 25 was already facing a federal First Amendment challenge as of 2025, after complaints were filed over political mailers that altered images of Republican legislative candidates. The litigation mirrors constitutional battles over similar laws in other states. Election deepfake laws nationally carry ongoing First Amendment risk, and courts have not yet settled where the line falls between required disclosure and compelled speech.
For context on how Montana's approach compares to other states, see our Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State hub.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Montana HB 513, signed May 13, 2025, and effective January 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive voice-and-likeness statutes in the country. It establishes exclusive, transferable property rights for each Montana resident (or anyone domiciled in Montana at the time of death) over their name, voice, and visual likeness.
The law directly targets AI replicas. It prohibits the unauthorized publication or distribution of highly realistic, computer-generated digital voice depictions and digital visual depictions of a person for commercial use without consent. Rights survive death and remain enforceable for 20 years after the person's passing, making them descendible to heirs.
The civil remedy is compensatory rather than a fixed statutory sum. Under MCA 30-14-1714, a violator is liable to the injured person for the actual damages suffered, plus any profits from the unauthorized use. The statute sets no minimum statutory damages amount and provides no punitive damages or attorney fee award. The same remedy applies whether the violation is publishing an unauthorized replica for commercial use or distributing technology built primarily to produce unauthorized replicas of an identified person. A claim must be commenced within 4 years after the claimant discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the violation.
Montana's HB 513 is modeled on the framework pioneered by Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), which was the first state law to extend right of publicity specifically to AI voice simulations. Montana goes further by covering both voice and visual likeness together and by including a post-death right.
HB 513 includes First Amendment exceptions for news reporting, commentary, criticism, satire, and parody, so realistic AI-generated content used in clearly satirical contexts is not automatically actionable.
For general AI regulation in Montana beyond deepfakes, see Montana AI Laws.
Federal Law That Applies in Montana
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) was signed into law on May 19, 2025. It creates a federal crime for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes (called "digital forgeries" in the text). Penalties reach up to 2 years in federal prison (3 years when the victim is a minor).
Critically, platforms must remove content within 48 hours after a victim submits a removal notice. The compliance deadline for that platform obligation is May 19, 2026. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform removal obligation only, treating a failure to comply as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The criminal publication offense is prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, so a criminal complaint goes to law enforcement or the FBI, not to the FTC.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls qualify as "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). Unwanted AI voice-clone robocalls to phones are illegal nationwide without prior express consent.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)) already covers computer-generated images "indistinguishable from a real minor" under the PROTECT Act, independent of any state law gaps.
Two proposed federal laws are frequently cited but are NOT yet enacted. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfakes with liquidated damages of $150,000, rising to $250,000 where the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. It passed the Senate on January 13, 2026, but is still pending in the House. The NO FAKES Act (S.1367, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI voice and likeness replicas. Both bills remain pending in Congress as of mid-2026 and should not be treated as law.
What Victims Can Do
Victims of intimate deepfakes in Montana have several paths. For criminal enforcement, file a complaint with local law enforcement under or . Because these offenses turn on intent and knowledge elements (such as intent to terrify, extort, or cause harm), documenting the context and communication surrounding the image strengthens a complaint.
For election deepfakes, file a complaint with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices. Candidates may also file for a court injunction directly. SB 25 also lets a prevailing candidate recover actual damages plus up to $10,000 in punitive damages, beyond the administrative penalty structure.
For unauthorized AI voice or likeness use, HB 513 (codified at MCA 30-14-1714) creates a direct civil claim for the actual damages suffered plus any profits the violator made from the unauthorized use. There is no statutory damages floor, so what a claim is worth depends on what the claimant can prove.
Under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, victims can submit removal notices directly to platforms. Platforms must act within 48 hours. If a platform ignores a valid removal notice, that failure can be reported to the FTC through its consumer complaint portal. Criminal conduct should be reported to law enforcement or the FBI instead, because the FTC has no criminal enforcement authority.
Montana's recording consent laws and data privacy rules may apply to related conduct. See Montana Recording Laws and Montana Data Privacy Laws for those frameworks.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Nonconsensual intimate deepfake (first offense) | MCA 45-8-213 (HB 514) | Misdemeanor; fine up to $500, up to 6 months county jail |
| Nonconsensual intimate deepfake (repeat offense) | MCA 45-8-213 (HB 514) | Felony; up to 5 years state prison, fine up to $25,000 |
| Disclosing explicit synthetic media (first offense) | MCA 45-5-640 (SB 413) | Fine up to $1,000, up to 1 year county jail |
| Disclosing explicit synthetic media (repeat offense or minor depicted) | MCA 45-5-640 (SB 413) | Fine up to $10,000, up to 5 years state prison (10 years if person depicted is under 18) |
| AI-generated CSAM | (HB 82) | Felony (existing CSAM penalties apply) |
| Election deepfake without disclosure (first sufficiency finding) | SB 25 (2025) | Civil penalties under MCA 13-37-128 |
| Election deepfake without disclosure (second finding) | SB 25 (2025) | Misdemeanor; fine up to $500, up to 6 months county jail |
| Election deepfake without disclosure (third+ offense) | SB 25 (2025) | Felony; fine up to $5,000, up to 2 years state prison |
| Unauthorized AI voice/likeness replica (commercial) | MCA 30-14-1714 (HB 513, eff. Jan. 1, 2026) | Civil: actual damages plus any profits from the unauthorized use |
| Distributing technology built to produce unauthorized AI replicas | MCA 30-14-1714 (HB 513, eff. Jan. 1, 2026) | Civil: actual damages plus any profits from the unauthorized use |
| Publishing intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12) | Federal crime; up to 2 years (3 for minors) |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Montana's deepfake and AI image laws, not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly. The information above reflects statutes and enacted legislation as of mid-2026. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Montana attorney.
More Montana Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Montana?
It depends on the purpose and content. Nonconsensual intimate deepfakes are criminal under MCA 45-8-213 (as amended by HB 514, effective October 1, 2025) and MCA 45-5-640 (SB 413, effective May 12, 2025). Election deepfakes distributed without a disclosure within 60 days of a Montana election violate SB 25. Unauthorized commercial AI replicas of a person's voice or likeness violate HB 513 starting January 1, 2026. Purely satirical or clearly labeled content generally is not covered.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Montana?
Yes. MCA 45-8-213, amended by HB 514 (effective October 1, 2025), criminalizes the publication or distribution of digitally fabricated intimate images without the depicted person's consent when done to extort, harm, or threaten. A first offense is a misdemeanor; subsequent offenses are felonies with up to 5 years in prison and fines up to $25,000. The separate offense of disclosing explicit synthetic media (MCA 45-5-640) carries up to 10 years in state prison when the person depicted is a minor. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act provides an additional criminal layer.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Montana?
For unauthorized AI voice or likeness replicas used commercially, HB 513 (codified at MCA 30-14-1714, effective January 1, 2026) creates a civil cause of action for the actual damages suffered plus any profits the violator made from the unauthorized use. The statute sets no minimum statutory damages figure. For election deepfakes, SB 25 allows candidates to seek injunctive relief and up to $10,000 in damages. NCII deepfakes under MCA 45-8-213 are primarily criminal rather than civil, though related conduct may support other tort claims.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Montana?
Unauthorized AI voice clones used for commercial purposes without consent will be illegal under HB 513 (MCA 30-14-1714) starting January 1, 2026, and the person depicted can sue for actual damages plus any profits the violator made from the unauthorized use. AI-generated voice robocalls without prior express consent are already illegal nationwide under the FCC's February 2024 ruling applying the TCPA. Montana's HB 513 is modeled on Tennessee's ELVIS Act, the national archetype for voice clone legislation.
What is Montana's election deepfake law?
Montana SB 25 (2025) prohibits distributing AI-altered depictions of candidates within 60 days of a Montana election unless the communication clearly states the image was substantially edited by AI. Enforcement runs through the Commissioner of Political Practices: a first sufficiency finding carries civil penalties, a second triggers misdemeanor prosecution (fine up to $500, up to 6 months in jail), and a third or later finding triggers felony prosecution (fine up to $5,000, up to 2 years in state prison). Candidates can also seek expedited injunctive relief, actual damages, and up to $10,000 in punitive damages. The law faces an ongoing First Amendment challenge in federal court.
Does Montana law cover AI-generated CSAM?
Yes. HB 82 (signed April 7, 2025; effective July 1, 2025) amended MCA 45-5-625 to expressly criminalize computer-generated and AI-fabricated child sexual abuse material. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B)) independently covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors under the PROTECT Act of 2003, regardless of state law.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in Montana?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that applies in all 50 states, including Montana. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions including AI deepfakes, with penalties up to 2 years in prison (3 for victims who are minors). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim notice by May 19, 2026.
Are the DEFIANCE Act and NO FAKES Act law in Montana?
No. Both bills are pending proposals in the 119th Congress as of mid-2026. The DEFIANCE Act would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfakes; the NO FAKES Act would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI voice and likeness replicas. Neither has been enacted. Do not rely on either as current law.
Updates
Corrected the civil remedy under Montana's AI likeness law (MCA 30-14-1714), which provides actual damages plus the violator's profits and no $50,000 statutory minimum, clarified that the FTC enforces only the TAKE IT DOWN Act's platform removal duty while the criminal offense is prosecuted by the Justice Department, and fixed the NO FAKES Act bill number.
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
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.
Montana Code Annotated, Title 45
§ 45-5-640Disclosing Explicit Synthetic MediaIn force
45-5-640. Disclosing explicit synthetic media. (1) A person commits the offense of disclosing explicit synthetic media when the person knowingly or purposely: (a) discloses explicit synthetic media and knows or reasonably should know that an identifiable person portrayed in whole or in part in the explicit synthetic media did not consent to the disclosure and that disclosure of the explicit synthetic media would cause the identifiable person substantial emotional distress; (b) discloses explicit synthetic media with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure an identifiable person portrayed in whole or in part in the explicit synthetic media; or (c) possesses and threatens to disclose explicit synthetic media with the intent to obtain money or other valuable consideration from an identifiable person portrayed in whole or in part in the explicit synthetic media. (2) (a) Except as provided in subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), a person convicted of the offense of disclosing explicit synthetic media shall be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 1 year, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
§ 45-5-625Sexual Abuse Of ChildrenIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
45-5-625. Sexual abuse of children. (1) A person commits the offense of sexual abuse of children if the person: (a) knowingly employs, uses, or permits the employment or use of a child in an exhibition of sexual conduct, actual or simulated; (b) knowingly photographs, films, videotapes, develops or duplicates the photographs, films, or videotapes, or records a child engaging in sexual conduct, actual or simulated; (c) knowingly, by any means of communication, including electronic communication or in person, persuades, entices, counsels, coerces, encourages, directs, or procures a child under 16 years of age or a person, including a law enforcement officer using an undercover or fictitious identity, whom the offender believes to be a child under 16 years of age to engage in sexual conduct, actual or simulated, or to view sexually explicit material or acts for the purpose of inducing or persuading a child to participate in any sexual activity that is illegal; (d) knowingly processes, develops, prints, publishes, transports, distributes, sells, exhibits, or advertises any visual or print medium, including a medium by use of electronic communication in which a child is engaged in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 26 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. T. Brennan (2025) the Montana Supreme Court held that section 45-5-625(1)(a) reaches in-person sexualized viewing of a child, requiring no recording or payment, and reversed a dismissal. Griffin v. State (2003) held Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition inapplicable because subsection (1)(e) covers actual children.
Leading cases:
- State v. Hamilton (Montana Supreme Court 2007, 338 Mont. 142)“…Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090, is reasonably equivalent to § 45-5-625, MCA, sexual abuse of children. ¶8 A sex…”
- State v. T. Brennan (Montana Supreme Court 2025, 2025 MT 46)“…te v. Felde, 2021 MT 1, ¶ 16, 402 Mont. 391, 478 P.3d 825. Section 45-5-625, MCA, broadly prohibits the victimization of…”
- City of Great Falls v. M.K. Enterprises, Inc. (Montana Supreme Court 1987, 225 Mont. 292)“…oths have existed in Great Falls. It is a crime in Montana, Section 45-5-625, MCA, to use a child for or to expose him to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 45-8-213Privacy In CommunicationsIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, communicates with a person by electronic communication and threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person or makes repeated use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or repeated lewd or lascivious suggestions; (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; (d) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure or to obtain money or other valuable consideration, publishes, distributes, or discloses real or digitally fabricated printed or electronic photographs, pictures, images, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 23 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dugan (2013) struck the statute's prima facie intent clause as overbroad. State v. Brown (1988) noted the statute still bars recording without all participants' permission and rejected an overbreadth attack on its public-official exception. State v. DuBray (2003) found no violation where the defendant knew of the recording.
Leading cases:
- State v. Smith (Montana Supreme Court 2004, 322 Mont. 206)✓A man who phoned threats to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend argued he should have been charged under section 45-8-213(1)(a) instead of assault with a weapon. The court held the two statutes punish different conduct, so the charge was within prosecutorial discretion.
- State v. Dugan (Montana Supreme Court 2013, 369 Mont. 39)“…rbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in § 45-8-213, MCA. However, a narrow application would be…”
- In re C.S. (Montana Supreme Court 1984, 210 Mont. 144)“…n of privacy in communication, a misdemeanor as provided in Section 45-8-213, MCA. The facts underlying the offense were…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties, Montana Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Camera Rules, Privacy Rights, and Disputes (2026), Montana Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Surveillance Rules (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
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)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCA 45-8-213: Privacy in Communications (as amended by HB 514, Ch. 686, L. 2025)(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- MCA 45-5-625: Sexual Abuse of Children (as amended by HB 82, 2025)(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Montana SB 25 (2025) Enrolled: Revise election laws regarding disclosure requirements for the use of AI in elections(docs.legmt.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12, 119th Congress (S.146)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256: Federal definition of child pornography including computer-generated material (PROTECT Act)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17: AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls (February 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- Tennessee ELVIS Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq. (2024 Pub. Ch. 588): national archetype for AI voice-clone legislation(publications.tnsosfiles.com).gov
- MCA 45-5-640: Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media (SB 413, 2025)(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- MCA 30-14-1714: Property rights in name, voice, and likeness; unauthorized digital replicas (HB 513, 2025)(mca.legmt.gov)
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12: enacted text, including FTC enforcement of the platform notice-and-removal requirement as an unfair or deceptive act or practice(govinfo.gov)
- NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S.1367, 119th Congress), introduced text(govinfo.gov)
- DEFIANCE Act of 2025 (S.1837, 119th Congress), engrossed in Senate: 'Passed the Senate January 13, 2026'(govinfo.gov)