North Dakota
North Dakota 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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

North Dakota enacted three deepfake laws in a single 2025 legislative session. As of August 1, 2025, creating, possessing, or distributing a sexually explicit deepfake without consent is a crime (a Class A misdemeanor in most cases) under , with a civil remedy of up to $10,000 in statutory damages. Separate laws require AI disclosure in political advertising and extend the state's CSAM prohibition to computer-generated images of minors.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in North Dakota?
Yes, under specific circumstances. North Dakota law covers two of the three main deepfake categories: sexual or intimate content and election-related content. Commercial voice and likeness exploitation is not yet addressed by statute.
The sexual deepfake prohibition () is broad. It covers not just photographs and videos of real people, but also altered images and fully computer-generated (AI) depictions, so long as they show nude or partially nude figures and were made or shared without the subject's consent. Both the creator and the distributor face criminal liability.
The election law () does not criminalize political deepfakes outright. Instead, it requires AI-generated content that impersonates a human likeness or voice in political advertising to be clearly labeled. A campaign ad built entirely from real footage needs no disclaimer. The duty applies only when AI-generated content visually or audibly impersonates a human, and the statute expressly exempts AI used solely for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, or stylistic editing that does not create a fake human likeness or voice.
What is NOT covered: purely artistic or entertainment deepfakes of non-sexual subjects, AI voice cloning for commercial purposes (no right-of-publicity statute applies), and defamatory-but-non-sexual deepfake videos. Those fall outside North Dakota criminal law, though civil tort claims (defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress) may still apply.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
North Dakota's primary deepfake law, N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.1-03.3, was updated by HB 1351, signed by Governor Kelly Armstrong on April 21, 2025, and effective August 1, 2025. The law expressly covers real photographs, altered images, and computer-generated depictions alike. A fully AI-fabricated intimate image of a real person triggers the same criminal and civil liability as a manipulated photo.

The Class A misdemeanor, the highest misdemeanor tier under North Dakota law, applies to surreptitiously creating or willfully possessing such an image without written consent, and to distributing or publishing it with intent to cause emotional harm or humiliation or after the depicted person gives notice that they do not consent. A Class A misdemeanor carries up to 360 days in jail and a fine of up to $3,000. A separate Class B misdemeanor (up to 30 days and a $1,500 fine) covers acquiring and knowingly distributing a sexually expressive image that was created without the subject's consent.
On the civil side, the statute gives victims a standalone cause of action. A plaintiff can recover up to $10,000 in statutory damages, meaning they do not have to prove a specific dollar amount of harm. On top of that, the court can order disgorgement of any profits the defendant made by distributing the image. Injunctive relief and other equitable remedies remain available alongside the statutory action.
For images of minors, HB 1386 (also signed April 21, 2025) takes a separate track. It amends and 12.1-27.2-04.1 to add computer-generated and AI-produced images of minors to the state's CSAM prohibition. Prior to HB 1386, legal analysis questioned whether North Dakota's CSAM statute explicitly reached synthetic material; that gap is now closed.
Federal CSAM law provides an independent layer of protection. Under (8)(B) and the PROTECT Act of 2003, computer-generated or AI-produced images that are indistinguishable from a real minor are federal crimes regardless of any state law gap.
Election and Political Deepfakes
HB 1167, signed April 10, 2025, created . The law covers any political advertising or communication that supports or opposes a candidate, political committee, or political party, or promotes or defeats an initiated measure, and contains images, graphics, video, audio, text, or other digital content created in whole or in part with AI to visually or audibly impersonate a human.
The required disclaimer is specific and must appear prominently: "THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." The definition of "artificial intelligence" in the statute targets machine-based systems that generate content from data patterns, but explicitly excludes systems that are rule-programmed rather than generative. A simple automated graphic tool does not trigger the disclosure obligation.
Election deepfake laws in multiple states have drawn First Amendment scrutiny. A federal court struck down California's AB 2839 election deepfake law in its entirety and permanently enjoined it in August 2025 on free-speech grounds (Kohls v. Bonta). North Dakota's disclosure-only approach (requiring a label rather than banning the content) is generally considered more constitutionally durable than outright bans, but the legal landscape continues to evolve.
The law applies to all statewide and local elections and covers digital ads, social media posts, and broadcast content alike.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
North Dakota has no statutory right of publicity and no equivalent to Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., eff. July 1, 2024). Tennessee set the national benchmark by being the first state to extend the right of publicity expressly to AI voice simulations. North Dakota has not followed it.
Using an AI voice clone of a North Dakota resident for a commercial advertisement, a podcast, or a media product is not a standalone state crime and does not give rise to a statutory civil claim in North Dakota. An affected person would need to pursue a common law misappropriation or right-of-publicity claim, and North Dakota courts have never definitively recognized one, so remedies are even more uncertain here than in states with established common law rights.
For AI-generated robocalls that use a cloned voice, federal law fills part of the gap. The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls qualify as "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making unsolicited AI voice-clone calls to phones illegal without prior express consent.
The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a nationwide right of publicity covering AI-generated voice and likeness replicas, but as of June 2026 it has not passed either chamber and remains a proposal only.
Federal Law That Applies in North Dakota
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) was signed May 19, 2025, and is the first federal law criminalizing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It covers both adults and minors and expressly includes AI-generated "digital forgeries." The federal penalty is up to two years in prison (three years if the victim is a minor).

The Act also imposes a 48-hour removal obligation on platforms: once a victim notifies a platform that their intimate image appears without consent, the platform must remove it within 48 hours or face FTC enforcement. The compliance deadline for platforms is May 19, 2026. This federal takedown right exists independently of anything North Dakota offers and works even when the perpetrator's identity is unknown.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would add a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages up to $150,000 ($250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The 118th Congress version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. The 119th Congress version passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but remains pending in the House as of June 2026 and is NOT law. See the DEFIANCE Act update for the latest status.
The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, eff. April 1, 2024) prohibits AI-generated impersonation of government entities and businesses. The individual-impersonation extension remains an unfinalized proposed rulemaking.
Federal CSAM statutes () cover AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors, regardless of whether North Dakota's HB 1386 would independently reach the same conduct.
What Victims Can Do
If you are the victim of a sexual deepfake in North Dakota, your first options are criminal and civil.
On the criminal side, file a report with local law enforcement or the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Under NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3, both the person who created the image and any person who distributed it can be charged. Preserve all evidence (screenshots, URLs, messages) before attempting to get the content removed, because platforms often delete content quickly once a takedown request is made.
On the civil side, you can sue the creator or distributor directly under the NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 civil cause of action for up to $10,000 in statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief. You do not need to prove actual dollar damages to collect statutory damages.
For platform removal, use the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act process: submit a notice to the platform identifying the content, and the platform must remove it within 48 hours. This applies to any platform operating in the United States. The FTC enforces compliance.
For political deepfakes, a complaint can be filed with the North Dakota Secretary of State, which administers campaign finance and political advertising laws under Chapter 16.1-10.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Creating or distributing a sexual deepfake without consent (adults) | NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 (HB 1351, eff. Aug. 1, 2025) | Class A misdemeanor (up to 360 days, $3,000 fine) |
| Civil claim: sexual deepfake victim | NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 | Up to $10,000 statutory damages + disgorgement of profits |
| Possessing computer-generated CSAM (minors) | / 12.1-27.2-04.1 (HB 1386, eff. 2025) | Felony (per existing CSAM penalty tier) |
| Political advertising using AI without disclosure | NDCC 16.1-10-04.2 (HB 1167, eff. 2025) | Class A misdemeanor (NDCC 16.1-10-08 catchall penalty) |
| Nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if minor victim) |
| AI voice-clone robocalls without consent | TCPA / FCC 24-17 | FCC enforcement; civil liability per TCPA |

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about North Dakota deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Deepfake and AI laws are changing rapidly; several of the laws described here took effect in 2025, and federal legislation is still evolving. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face charges, consult a licensed North Dakota attorney.
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in North Dakota?
Yes, if the deepfake is sexually explicit and made or shared without the person's consent. Under N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.1-03.3 (effective August 1, 2025), creating, possessing, or distributing such an image (including fully AI-generated depictions) is a crime, charged as a Class A misdemeanor in most cases. Non-sexual deepfakes are not criminalized under a specific North Dakota statute, though civil tort claims may apply.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in North Dakota?
Yes. NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3 provides a civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes. You can recover up to $10,000 in statutory damages without proving a specific dollar loss, plus any profits the defendant made from distributing the image, plus injunctive relief. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act also requires platforms to remove the content within 48 hours of your notice.
Is deepfake porn a crime in North Dakota?
Yes. HB 1351, effective August 1, 2025, makes it a crime, a Class A misdemeanor in most cases (up to 360 days, $3,000 fine), to create, possess, or distribute sexually explicit images of a person (real, altered, or computer-generated) without their consent. The law applies equally to AI-generated pornographic deepfakes and to manipulated real photos.
Are AI voice clones illegal in North Dakota?
There is no North Dakota statute specifically banning AI voice cloning for commercial purposes. The state has no right-of-publicity law and no ELVIS Act equivalent. However, AI-generated voice calls made to phones without consent violate the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act under the FCC's 2024 ruling. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (not yet law) would create a nationwide right covering voice clones.
What is North Dakota's election deepfake law?
HB 1167, which created NDCC 16.1-10-04.2, requires political advertising that uses AI-generated content to impersonate a human likeness or voice to carry the disclosure: "THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." The law does not ban AI in political ads; it requires labeling, and AI used solely for text generation or editing is exempt. It applies to all forms of political communication including digital ads and social media posts.
Does North Dakota law cover AI-generated child pornography?
Yes. HB 1386 (signed April 21, 2025) amended NDCC 12.1-27.2-01 to include computer-generated and AI-produced sexual images of minors. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256, PROTECT Act) independently covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor, regardless of state law.
How do I get a deepfake removed from a website?
Use the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act process: submit a removal notice to the platform. Platforms must remove nonconsensual intimate images (including AI deepfakes) within 48 hours of receiving notice, or face FTC enforcement. For sexual deepfakes, you can also report to North Dakota law enforcement and pursue a civil lawsuit for up to $10,000 in statutory damages under NDCC 12.1-27.1-03.3.
How do North Dakota's deepfake laws compare to other states?
North Dakota addressed all three main deepfake categories (sexual content, election content, and minor CSAM) in its single 2025 session, which puts it ahead of many states. However, it lacks a right-of-publicity statute covering AI voice cloning, which Tennessee's ELVIS Act (2024) pioneered. The Deepfake Laws by State hub has a full comparison. For general AI regulation, see North Dakota AI Laws.
Updates
Fixed a broken link in the opening paragraph so it now correctly reaches the North Dakota sexting laws page.
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.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 12.1-27.1-03.3Creation, possession, or dissemination of sexually expressive images prohibited - Exception - Civil actionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, knowing of its character and content, that person: Without written consent from each individual who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image, surreptitiously creates or willfully possesses a sexually expressive image that was surreptitiously created; or Distributes or publishes, electronically or otherwise, a sexually expressive image with the intent to cause emotional harm or humiliation to any individual depicted in the sexually expressive image who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image, or after being given notice by an individual or parent or guardian of the individual who is depicted in a sexually expressive image that the individual, parent, or guardian does not consent to the distribution or publication of the sexually expressive image. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, knowing of its character and content, that person acquires and knowingly distributes any sexually expressive image that was created without the consent of the subject of the image. This section does not authorize any act prohibited by any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Also relied on in: North Dakota Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 16.1-10-04.2Use of artificial intelligence - Disclosure - Exception - DefinitionIn force
Any action taken for a political purpose, including communication and political advertising in support of or opposition to a candidate, political committee, or a political party, or for the purpose of promoting passage or defeat of initiated or referred measures or petitions, containing images, graphics, videos, audio, text, or other digital content created in whole or in part with the use of artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a human, prominently must state the following disclaimer: "THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." This section does not apply to content solely using artificial intelligence for text generation, grammar correction, spelling checks, stylistic editing, or enhancing existing content without creating a new impersonation of human likeness or voice. For purposes of this section, "artificial intelligence" means a machine-based system capable of creating images, graphics, videos, audio, text, and other digital content based on human-defined objectives or data patterns.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
§ 12.1-27.2-01DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this chapter: "Computer-generated image" means an image or visual representation created through the use of artificial intelligence or other computer program. "Minor" means an individual under eighteen years of age or a computer-generated image used, created, adapted, altered, or modified to appear to depict an individual under eighteen years of age by face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristics. "Obscene sexual performance" means any performance which includes sexual conduct by a minor in any obscene material or obscene performance, as defined in section 12.1-27.1-01. "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph, dance, or other visual representation, or any part of a performance. "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, ship, transport, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2017
Leading cases:
- State v. White (North Dakota Supreme Court 2017, 890 N.W.2d 825)“…lewd exhibition of the buttocks, breasts, or genitals.... ” N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-01(4). In determining the age of a minor:…”
- United States v. Gleich (District Court, D. North Dakota 2003, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1082)“…form that include sexual conduct by a minor, as defined by N.D.C.C. 12.1-27.2-01(4). 2. Photographs, pictures, vi…”
- United States v. Douglas Eugene Gleich (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2005, 397 F.3d 608)“…form that include sexual conduct by a minor, as defined by N.D.C.C. 12.1-27.2-01(1) and/or (4), or *612 c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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)
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.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.1-03.3 (HB 1351, eff. Aug. 1, 2025) -- Sexually Expressive Images Prohibition and Civil Action(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-10-04.2 (HB 1167, 2025) -- AI Disclosure in Political Advertising(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.2-01 (HB 1386, 2025) -- Computer-Generated Prohibited Images (CSAM)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 -- AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) -- Federal CSAM Statute (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- DEFIANCE Act, S.1837 (119th Congress) -- Pending Federal Civil Action for Sexual Deepfakes(congress.gov).gov