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

Nevada has enacted criminal law covering all three major deepfake categories: distributing intimate-image deepfakes to harass or harm someone is a category D felony under NRS 200.780 (expanded by SB 213, signed June 5, 2025); election materials using AI-generated content must carry mandatory disclosures under AB 73 (effective January 1, 2026); and the state's robust right-of-publicity statute (NRS 597.770-597.810) protects voice and likeness against unauthorized commercial use, including AI voice cloning.

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

Yes, but the answer depends on what type of deepfake and how it is used. Nevada law addresses three distinct categories: sexual and intimate deepfakes, election and political deepfakes, and AI voice cloning for commercial purposes. Simply creating a deepfake for private use is not automatically criminal, but distribution without consent or commercial misuse crosses into felony territory under two separate statutes.

NRS 200.780 targets dissemination of intimate images, including AI-generated ones, without the subject's consent and with intent to harass, harm, or terrorize that person. It does not require a romantic relationship. Anyone who shares a deepfake sexual image of an identifiable person with that intent can face felony charges. AB 73 applies to the political sphere, requiring disclosure labels on AI-manipulated campaign content.

Notably, Nevada has no general-purpose deepfake prohibition. Creating a deepfake for satire, parody, news, or artistic expression that does not involve intimate content or commercial use of someone's likeness is not a crime. The key thresholds are distribution of intimate content without consent and undisclosed use of AI in paid political advertising.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

Nevada's core deepfake law is NRS 200.780, which criminalizes electronically disseminating or selling an intimate image of another person without consent, with the intent to harass, harm, or terrorize that person. Governor Lombardo signed SB 213 on June 5, 2025, explicitly expanding this statute to cover images that "could reasonably be mistaken for actual depictions of the individual," capturing AI-generated content, computer-generated images, and any digital manipulation tool used to fabricate realistic intimate images.

The offense is a category D felony regardless of whether the perpetrator created the image or merely distributed it. A category D felony in Nevada carries 1 to 4 years in Nevada State Prison and a fine up to $5,000. Conviction does not trigger mandatory sex offender registration under this statute, which is notable given the range of contexts in which the law could apply.

The statute includes exceptions for legitimate public-interest reporting, law enforcement activity, and legal proceedings. Victims may also pursue civil tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy, though SB 213 itself does not add an explicit civil cause of action.

For victims under 18, Nevada's CSAM statute at NRS 200.700 defines "performance" broadly to include computer-generated images, meaning AI-generated sexual content depicting minors is already covered under the state's child exploitation laws (independent of the intimate-image statute). Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256 provides a parallel floor: AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors are federal crimes under the PROTECT Act regardless of any state gap.

Election and Political Deepfakes

Nevada enacted AB 73 during the 2025 legislative session, with the law taking effect January 1, 2026. The statute amends NRS Chapter 294A (Nevada's election laws) to require disclosure whenever a candidate, campaign committee, political action committee, or political party committee uses AI-generated or AI-manipulated content in paid political advertising.

The disclosure requirement applies to any image, video, or audio that has been intentionally manipulated by artificial intelligence or generative AI to create a realistic but fabricated depiction of a real person. The label must appear in a "clear and conspicuous manner." For video content, the disclosure must run for the entire duration of the ad. For audio-only content, the required statement must be spoken at the beginning, at the end, and every two minutes throughout (for audio exceeding two minutes).

Candidates depicted in AI-altered materials without the required label may seek an injunction in district court to stop dissemination of the content. Critics have noted the law lacks significant financial penalties, which limits enforcement leverage. The law does not prohibit using AI in political ads outright; it requires only that such use be disclosed.

First Amendment considerations are worth noting. A California election deepfake law (AB 2839) was struck down and permanently enjoined in August 2025 on free-speech grounds in Kohls v. Bonta, illustrating that overbroad restrictions on political speech face constitutional risk. Nevada's disclosure-based approach (rather than an outright ban) is designed to sidestep that vulnerability, but legal challenges remain possible in this fast-moving area of law.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

Nevada has one of the nation's stronger statutory rights of publicity, codified at NRS 597.770 through 597.810. The statute expressly covers "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness," meaning voice cloning for commercial purposes falls squarely within its scope without any need for judicial extension.

The right lasts for the person's lifetime plus 50 years after death, meaning estates can enforce it against posthumous AI voice simulations. Any commercial use requires prior written consent. The statute applies to any commercial use occurring within Nevada regardless of where the person is domiciled, giving it broad geographic reach for in-state promotions, advertisements, or AI-powered products.

For damages, NRS 597.810 provides actual damages not less than $750 per violation (a meaningful floor) plus exemplary or punitive damages when the trier of fact finds the defendant knowingly acted without required consent. Injunctive relief is also available to stop ongoing unauthorized use.

For comparison, Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101, eff. July 1, 2024) is the national archetype for AI voice-clone legislation and explicitly extends protection to voice simulations created by AI. Nevada's existing right-of-publicity statute already covers voice by its plain terms, so Nevada is arguably in a stronger structural position than states that lack any right-of-publicity law at all, though it lacks the ELVIS Act's explicit AI framing.

For general AI regulation in Nevada beyond deepfakes, including 2025 bills on health care, background checks, and automated decisions, see Nevada AI Laws and Regulation.

Federal Law That Applies in Nevada

Several federal laws layer on top of Nevada's state protections and fill gaps where state coverage is absent.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish such content (referred to in the statute as "digital forgeries") for both adults and minors. Penalties reach up to 2 years in federal prison, or 3 years when a minor is depicted. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of receiving victim notice, with enforcement by the FTC. The 48-hour compliance window took effect May 19, 2026.

The FCC's AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) clarifies that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial voices" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Unsolicited AI voice-clone calls to phones without prior express consent are therefore illegal under federal law, a ruling prompted by the 2024 New Hampshire fake-Biden primary robocall incident.

The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses, including via AI voice cloning. The individual-impersonation extension remains a proposed rule, not yet final.

Two high-profile federal bills remain proposals only. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for deepfake sexual abuse victims 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 current version passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House, but it is not law as of mid-2026. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal voice-and-likeness right against unauthorized AI digital replicas; it has not passed either chamber. Neither should be described as enacted law.

What Victims Can Do

Victims of intimate deepfakes in Nevada have several overlapping avenues for relief.

For criminal enforcement, a report to local law enforcement or the Nevada Attorney General's office is the first step. Dissemination of an intimate deepfake without consent, with intent to harass, harm, or terrorize the victim, is a category D felony under NRS 200.780; law enforcement can investigate, arrest, and refer the case for prosecution. Criminal referrals can also be made to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) for federal TAKE IT DOWN Act violations.

For platform removal, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour rule applies nationwide as of May 2026. Major platforms are required to process victim removal requests within 48 hours of notice. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates a reporting intake tool tied to the TAKE IT DOWN program.

For civil remedies, victims of unauthorized commercial use of their voice or likeness can sue under NRS 597.810 for a minimum of $750 in actual damages plus punitive damages. General tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy may also be available in district court. The DEFIANCE Act, if enacted, would add a federal civil claim with statutory damages.

For election-related deepfakes, candidates depicted without the required AB 73 disclosure can seek an emergency injunction in Nevada district court to stop further distribution of the content.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Nevada deepfake laws and is not legal advice. This area of law is changing rapidly, with new bills passing every legislative session and federal proposals moving on short notice. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a deepfake-related legal matter, consult a licensed Nevada attorney.

More Nevada Laws

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