New York
New York 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 16, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
New York is one of the most legally active states on deepfakes. Penal Law § 245.15 was amended in 2023 to expressly criminalize AI-altered intimate images, Civil Rights Law § 52-c provides a civil cause of action for sexually explicit digital replicas, Election Law § 14-106 was updated in April 2024 to require disclosure on AI-manipulated political media, Civil Rights Law § 50-f protects the digital likenesses of deceased performers, and General Business Law § 396-b requires advertisers to disclose AI-generated synthetic performers. Federal law adds further layers.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in New York?
Yes, in most contexts that cause harm. New York covers all three major deepfake buckets: sexual and intimate images, election communications, and commercial voice and likeness exploitation. The state does not have a single omnibus deepfake statute but instead layers multiple targeted laws across its Penal Law and Civil Rights Law. That layered structure gives victims more than one avenue to pursue accountability.
One remaining gray area: the FY2026 state budget (signed May 2025) amended the Penal Law to treat AI-manipulated sexual images of real children as child sexual abuse material, but purely synthetic depictions not based on an identifiable child remain a debated gap that federal law fills independently. Purely non-commercial, non-sexual deepfakes of private individuals in non-electoral contexts may not trigger any specific New York statute, though common law claims for defamation or false light may still apply.
For a broader view of how New York regulates artificial intelligence across industries, see New York AI Laws, which covers algorithmic decision-making, employment bias, and consumer-facing AI obligations. This page focuses specifically on deepfake criminal liability and civil remedies.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Penal Law § 245.15 is New York's primary criminal statute for nonconsensual intimate images. The 2023 amendment (S1042A, signed September 29, 2023, effective approximately November 2023) expanded the statute to cover images "created or altered by digitization," meaning AI-generated deepfakes that never involved an actual photograph of the person are now explicitly covered. The law defines digitization as altering "an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, other than the person depicted, or computer generated images."
To violate § 245.15, the person must intentionally disseminate or publish an intimate image with intent to cause emotional, financial, or physical harm to the depicted person, knowing that person did not consent. The statute covers still images and video. A person who originally consented to an image being taken can still be a victim if the subsequent deepfake-altered version was shared without consent.
A conviction under § 245.15 is a Class A misdemeanor, the highest misdemeanor grade in New York, carrying up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. While a misdemeanor, not a felony, victims who push for prosecution can combine it with the civil remedies under § 52-c.
Civil Rights Law § 52-c runs alongside the criminal statute and is the more powerful remedy for many victims. It provides a private civil cause of action against anyone who discloses, disseminates, or publishes sexually explicit material created through digitization when they know or reasonably should have known the depicted person did not consent to creation or publication. Courts have discretion to award injunctive relief, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and reasonable court costs and attorney fees. The three-year statute of limitations runs from dissemination or one year from discovery, whichever is later.
The combination of § 245.15 (criminal) and § 52-c (civil) means a New York victim has both state prosecution and a personal lawsuit available simultaneously. This dual-track framework is stronger than many states that provide only one avenue.
AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material
New York's base CSAM statute, Penal Law § 263.00, historically defined a covered "performance" in terms that did not plainly reach computer-generated images. The FY2026 state budget, signed in May 2025, modernized the Penal Law so that AI-generated or AI-manipulated sexual images of real, identifiable children are treated as child sexual abuse material. Purely synthetic depictions not based on an identifiable child remain a contested area, and the Digital Alterations Protection Act (DAPA), a standalone bill proposing felony-level offenses, was still pending as of mid-2026.
Regardless of any state-law gap, federal law applies. The PROTECT Act ((8)(B)) covers computer-generated images "indistinguishable" from a real minor in sexually explicit material, with no First Amendment defense available for indistinguishable content. Federal penalties run from 10 years to life depending on the conduct. Any AI-generated child sexual abuse material in New York can be prosecuted federally.
Election and Political Deepfakes
New York amended Election Law § 14-106 in April 2024 as part of the Fiscal Year 2025 state budget. The amendment added provisions addressing "materially deceptive media," which the statute defines as content that appears authentic or indistinguishable from reality, depicts events that did not occur or were significantly altered, and was created using software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated means.
Any person who distributes a covered political communication with actual knowledge that it contains materially deceptive media must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure stating that the image, video, or audio "has been manipulated." For audio content running longer than two minutes, the disclosure must be spoken at the beginning, the end, and at intervals of not more than two minutes throughout.
Candidates whose voice or likeness is used in such deceptive media without their consent may seek expedited injunctive relief in state supreme court, along with reasonable court costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs must prove deception by clear and convincing evidence. The law provides carve-outs for satire, parody, and bona fide news reporting with appropriate disclosure.
A First Amendment caution applies here: in August 2025, a federal court in Kohls v. Bonta struck down California's election deepfake statute (AB 2839) in its entirety and permanently enjoined it on First Amendment grounds, illustrating that election-deepfake laws carry ongoing constitutional risk. New York's disclosure-plus-injunction framework reduces but does not eliminate that exposure.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
New York has one of the most developed right-of-publicity frameworks in the country for voice and likeness, built through several Civil Rights Law provisions.
For deceased performers and personalities, Civil Rights Law § 50-f is the key statute. It protects the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of a deceased personality or performer, including "digital replicas" defined as newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representations of the person's voice or likeness. Coverage extends to audiovisual works, sound recordings, and live musical performances. Protection runs for 40 years after death. A December 2025 amendment (S.8391) strengthened § 50-f by removing the prior requirement that a plaintiff show a likelihood of deception, making unauthorized digital replicas actionable even when the audience might understand the content is AI-generated. Minimum damages are $2,000 or actual compensatory damages, whichever is greater, plus profits attributable to the unauthorized use and potential punitive damages.
For living persons, Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 prohibit commercial use of any person's name, portrait, picture, likeness, or voice for advertising or trade purposes without written consent. A violation of § 50 is a misdemeanor; § 51 provides the civil cause of action for injunction and compensatory damages, and where the defendant acted knowingly, the jury may award uncapped exemplary damages. Because § 50 expressly names voice as a protected attribute, unauthorized AI voice cloning used for commercial purposes (advertising, endorsements, merchandise) is actionable in New York even for living individuals.
Synthetic Performers in Advertising
New York also regulates the advertising side of generative AI. General Business Law § 396-b(1)(c) defines a "synthetic performer" as a digitally created asset, produced using generative artificial intelligence or similar software, that is intended to create the impression of an audiovisual or visual performance by a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer. Under § 396-b(3), a person who creates an advertisement for commercial purposes using a synthetic performer must conspicuously disclose in that advertisement that a synthetic performer appears in it, where the person has actual knowledge of the use. The civil penalty is $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
The duty has real limits. It does not reach advertisements for expressive works such as motion pictures, television programs, streaming content, or video games where the use of the synthetic performer is consistent with the work being promoted; it does not reach audio-only advertisements; and it does not apply where artificial intelligence was used solely for language translation. Media outlets that merely publish or disseminate a covered advertisement are also carved out, and the statute expressly preserves the rights available under Civil Rights Law §§ 50, 50-f, and 51.
That carve-in matters because § 396-b fills a gap the right-of-publicity statutes structurally cannot. An advertisement built around a wholly invented AI performer injures no identifiable person's likeness rights, so §§ 50, 51 and 50-f give a viewer nothing. The disclosure duty attaches anyway, on the theory that the audience is entitled to know the performer is not real.
Digital Replica Contracts With Living Performers
General Obligations Law § 5-302 governs the consent side for living performers. A provision in a contract for personal or professional services that allows the creation and use of a digital replica of the individual's voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person is void as against public policy where the provision lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended use of the replica, and the individual was neither represented by legal counsel who negotiated the licensing terms (stated clearly and conspicuously in a separately signed writing) nor represented by a labor organization whose collective bargaining agreement expressly addresses digital replica uses. The statute defines a digital replica as a simulation of a person's voice or likeness so close that a layperson could not readily distinguish it from the authentic one.
Where § 50-f addresses unauthorized replicas of deceased performers, § 5-302 polices the contracts through which living performers sign replica rights away. A studio or employer cannot bury an open-ended AI replica clause in a services agreement and rely on it later.
The national reference point for AI voice-specific legislation is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protection expressly to AI voice simulations. New York's existing §§ 50-51 already cover voice in commercial contexts, so New York's living-person protection is arguably broader in scope, though Tennessee's statute is more explicit about AI. For voice and likeness issues that overlap with biometric data collection, see New York Data Privacy Laws.
Federal Law That Applies in New York
Federal law provides several protections that run alongside New York's state statutes.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults and minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." It is a federal crime to knowingly publish such material, with penalties of up to two years in prison (three years if the victim is a minor). Online platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice, enforced by the FTC. The platform-removal compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. This federal law runs alongside Penal Law § 245.15 and Civil Rights Law § 52-c, giving New York victims federal criminal prosecution and fast-track platform takedown as additional tools.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls constitute "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). AI voice-clone robocalls to residential phones without prior express consent are therefore illegal nationwide and subject to FCC enforcement and civil TCPA suits.
The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive AI-assisted impersonation of government entities and businesses. The individual-impersonation extension remains an unfinalized proposed rulemaking as of June 2026.
Two federal proposals remain pending and are not law. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims 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 by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and remains pending in the House. For background on the proposal, see news coverage of the DEFIANCE Act. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI digital replicas of voice and likeness, but it has not passed either chamber as of mid-2026.
What Victims Can Do
A New York victim of a deepfake has several concrete options.
For platform removal, the fastest step is a notice under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. Platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate images, including deepfakes, within 48 hours of victim notice. This applies regardless of state law and requires no court order.
For criminal enforcement, victims of intimate image deepfakes can report to the New York Police Department or local law enforcement. Penal Law § 245.15 (Class A misdemeanor) can be charged by local prosecutors. For federal prosecution of egregious cases, the U.S. Attorney's Office can pursue charges under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
For a civil lawsuit, Civil Rights Law § 52-c gives victims of sexually explicit deepfakes a direct path to compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees without needing the criminal system. The three-year (or one-year-from-discovery) limitation period applies. For commercial voice or likeness exploitation, §§ 50-51 provide injunction and damages.
For deceased performer digital replicas, heirs or rights-holders of the deceased's estate can bring a claim under § 50-f for actual damages or the $2,000 minimum, plus profits and punitive damages.
For election deepfakes, affected candidates can seek expedited injunctive relief in state supreme court under Election Law § 14-106. An attorney experienced in election law should be engaged immediately given the time-sensitive nature of election cycle harms.
For context on recording consent and surveillance rights in New York, see New York Recording Laws.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing AI-altered intimate image with intent to harm | N.Y. Penal Law § 245.15 | Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail, up to $1,000 fine |
| Civil suit: sexually explicit deepfake disclosure | N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 52-c | Compensatory + punitive damages + injunctive relief + attorney fees |
| Unauthorized commercial use of living person's voice/likeness | N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51 | Misdemeanor (§ 50); injunction + compensatory damages + discretionary exemplary damages (§ 51) |
| Unauthorized digital replica of deceased performer | N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f | $2,000 minimum or actual damages + profits + possible punitive |
| Undisclosed synthetic performer in a commercial advertisement | N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396-b | Civil penalty: $1,000 first violation, $5,000 each subsequent violation |
| Digital replica clause in a personal services contract without specific use description or counsel/union representation | N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-302 | Provision void and unenforceable as against public policy |
| Election deepfake without required disclosure | N.Y. Election Law § 14-106 | Expedited injunctive relief + court costs + attorney fees |
| Nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 for minor victims) |
| AI voice-clone robocall without consent | TCPA via FCC 24-17 | FCC enforcement; TCPA civil liability up to $1,500/call |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about New York deepfake and AI laws as of 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This area of law is changing rapidly. Consult a licensed New York attorney for advice about your specific situation.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Related news
More New York Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in New York?
Yes, in most harmful contexts. Distributing an AI-altered intimate image with intent to cause emotional, financial, or physical harm is a Class A misdemeanor under Penal Law § 245.15 (amended 2023). Commercially using a living person's voice or likeness without written consent violates Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51. Creating AI-manipulated political media without the required disclosure violates Election Law § 14-106. General non-intimate, non-commercial deepfakes may not trigger a specific New York statute, but common law defamation or false-light claims could still apply.
Is deepfake porn a crime in New York?
Yes. Penal Law § 245.15 (S1042A, 2023) explicitly covers images 'created or altered by digitization' and criminalizes distributing them with intent to harm the depicted person. Conviction carries up to one year in jail as a Class A misdemeanor. Separately, Civil Rights Law § 52-c provides a civil cause of action for injunctive relief, punitive and compensatory damages, and attorney fees.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in New York?
Yes. Civil Rights Law § 52-c provides a direct civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes. You can recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring removal, and attorney fees. For commercial voice or likeness misuse, § 51 allows suits for injunction and damages. For deceased performer digital replicas, § 50-f provides a separate civil remedy.
Are AI voice clones illegal in New York?
Unauthorized commercial use of a living person's voice through AI cloning likely violates Civil Rights Law § 50, which prohibits using a person's voice for advertising or trade purposes without written consent. This is a misdemeanor with civil damages available under § 51. For deceased performers, § 50-f covers digital replicas of voice used in audiovisual works or sound recordings. The federal FCC ruling also makes AI voice robocalls illegal nationwide under the TCPA.
Does a New York ad have to disclose an AI-generated performer?
Yes, for most visual advertising. General Business Law § 396-b requires a person who creates a commercial advertisement featuring a 'synthetic performer' (a generative-AI asset presented as a performance by a human who is not any identifiable real performer) to conspicuously disclose in the ad that a synthetic performer appears in it, where that person has actual knowledge. The civil penalty is $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violation. Audio-only ads, ads for expressive works such as films and video games where the use fits the work, and AI used solely for language translation are exempt, as are media outlets that merely carry the ad.
Can a contract let a studio make an AI replica of a performer in New York?
Only on the statute's terms. General Obligations Law § 5-302 makes a digital-replica provision in a personal or professional services contract void as against public policy where it fails to give a reasonably specific description of the intended use of the replica and the individual was neither represented by legal counsel who negotiated the licensing terms nor covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly addresses digital replica uses. A broad, open-ended replica clause signed by an unrepresented performer is unenforceable.
What is New York's election deepfake law?
Election Law § 14-106 was amended in April 2024 to require that anyone distributing AI-manipulated political media with knowledge of the manipulation include a disclosure stating the content 'has been manipulated.' Candidates whose voice or likeness appears in deceptive media can seek expedited injunctive relief in state supreme court, plus court costs and attorney fees. The law exempts satire, parody, and bona fide news reporting.
Does New York protect deceased celebrities from deepfakes?
Yes. Civil Rights Law § 50-f protects the name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness of deceased performers and personalities, including 'digital replicas' (AI-generated representations), for 40 years after death. A December 2025 amendment (S.8391) removed the likelihood-of-deception requirement, making unauthorized digital replicas actionable even when audiences understand the content is AI-generated. Minimum damages are $2,000 or actual compensatory damages, plus profits.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in New York?
Yes. Signed May 19, 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) is a federal law making it a crime to publish nonconsensual intimate images including AI deepfakes, with penalties up to 2 years in prison (3 for minors). It also requires online platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice. It applies nationwide and supplements New York's Penal Law § 245.15 and Civil Rights Law § 52-c.
What should I do if someone posted a deepfake of me in New York?
Start with a platform takedown notice under the TAKE IT DOWN Act (platforms must remove the content within 48 hours). Report the conduct to local law enforcement for a Penal Law § 245.15 misdemeanor charge. File a civil suit under Civil Rights Law § 52-c for damages and injunctive relief. If the deepfake involves commercial use of your voice or likeness, consult an attorney about a claim under Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51.
Updates
Added New York's synthetic-performer advertising disclosure requirement (Gen. Bus. Law § 396-b, with its $1,000 and $5,000 civil penalties) and its digital-replica contract statute (Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-302), including new penalty-table rows and FAQs.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
New York Penal Law
§ 245.15Unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate imageIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image. 1. A person is guilty of unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image when: (a) with intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person, they intentionally disseminate or publish a still or video image depicting such other person with one or more intimate parts exposed or engaging in sexual conduct with another person, including an image created or altered by digitization, where such person may reasonably be identified from the still or video image itself or from information displayed in connection with the still or video image; and (b) the actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such dissemination or publication, including the dissemination or publication of an image taken with the consent of the person depicted when such person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private, regardless of whether the actor was present when such image was taken. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases:
- Matter of Samah DD. v. Mark VV. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2025, 2025 NY Slip Op 01018)“…fter his conduct took place ( see L 2019, ch 109, § [*2]1; Penal Law § 245.15). [FN3] That argument misses the mar…”
- People v. Ramos (Tomas) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2025, 2025 NY Slip Op 50634(U))“…l dissemination or publication of an intimate image (former Penal Law § 245.15 [1] [a] [i], [ii]), both in connection…”
- Marseet v. Rochester Institute of Technology (District Court, W.D. New York 2023)“…se the use of Sensitive Depictions is permitted by New York Penal Law Section 245.15(3) and because the Court’s July 8, 202…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, New York Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New York Pornography Laws (2026): Legality and Penalties
New York Election Law
§ 14-106Political communicationIn force
Political communication. 1. The statements required to be filed under the provisions of this article next succeeding a primary, general or special election shall be accompanied by a copy of all broadcast, cable or satellite schedules and scripts, paid internet or digital, print and other types of advertisements, pamphlets, circulars, flyers, brochures, letterheads and other printed matter purchased or produced, and reproductions of statements or information published to five hundred or more members of a general public audience by computer or other electronic device including but not limited to electronic mail or text message, purchased in connection with such election by or under the authority of the person filing the statement or the committee or the person on whose behalf it is filed, as the case may be. Such copies, schedules and scripts shall be preserved by the officer with whom or the board with which it is required to be filed for a period of one year from the date of filing thereof. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
New York Civil Rights Law
§ 50Right of privacyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait, picture, likeness, or voice of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of such minor's parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 278 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Howell v. New York Post Co. (New York Court of Appeals 1993, 81 N.Y.2d 115)“…eking multimillion dollar damages for alleged violations of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, intentional and negligent infli…”
- Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing (New York Court of Appeals 2000, 94 N.Y.2d 436)“…3 NY2d 948 ): "1. May a plaintiff recover under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 where the defendant used the pla…”
- Finger v. Omni Publications International., Ltd. (New York Court of Appeals 1990, 77 N.Y.2d 138)“…laintiffs commenced this action alleging only violations of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. Defendant moved to dismiss the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Photo Video Recording Consent Form
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)
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
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.Y. Penal Law § 245.15 (as amended by S1042A, 2023)(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 52-c (sexually explicit depictions civil action)(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-f (digital replicas of deceased performers, as amended by S.8391, Dec. 2025)(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 (right of publicity for living persons)(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Election Law § 14-106 (materially deceptive media, amended April 2024)(nysenate.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B): PROTECT Act federal CSAM coverage for AI-generated images(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17: AI-generated voices in robocalls ruled artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396-b (synthetic performer advertising disclosure; $1,000/$5,000 civil penalties)(nysenate.gov)
- N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-302 (contracts for the creation and use of digital replicas)(nysenate.gov)