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

Oregon has enacted deepfake protections in two of three key areas. Effective January 1, 2026, HB 2299 amended ORS 163.472 to explicitly criminalize nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults, a Class A misdemeanor that rises to a Class C felony with penalties up to five years in prison for repeat offenders. A separate 2024 law, SB 1571, requires disclosure when campaigns use synthetic media in political advertising and imposes civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Oregon has not yet enacted a standalone AI voice-cloning or right-of-publicity statute.

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

Yes, under specific circumstances. Oregon law addresses two of the three main deepfake categories: sexual or intimate deepfakes of adults and election-related synthetic media. The third bucket, commercial voice and likeness exploitation, has no state statute yet.

What is clearly covered: knowingly disclosing a realistic AI-generated intimate image of another adult without consent, with intent to harass, humiliate or injure that person, violates ORS 163.472 as amended. Oregon had already criminalized nonconsensual intimate image sharing; HB 2299 closed the gap for AI-generated content by adding "digitally created, manipulated or altered depiction that is reasonably realistic" to the definition of covered material.

What is not covered by state law: deepfakes used for harassment outside the intimate-image context, commercial AI impersonation of a person's voice or likeness for non-electoral purposes, and satirical or clearly labeled fictional deepfakes that do not depict intimate content. Oregon does not have a comprehensive right-of-publicity statute, so those claims must rely on federal law or common-law theories.

The election-deepfake statute (ORS 260.268) fills the political advertising gap but is limited to campaign communications and does not address general political commentary or satire. Like similar laws in other states, it carries ongoing First Amendment risk; a federal court struck down California's analogous election-deepfake law (AB 2839) and permanently enjoined it in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds, so enforcement of ORS 260.268 may face similar challenges.

Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes

ORS 163.472 is Oregon's primary tool against intimate deepfakes of adults. Before HB 2299, the statute covered photographs and recordings of real people. The 2025 amendment added "digitally created, manipulated or altered depiction that is reasonably realistic," which covers AI-generated images and videos even when no real intimate recording of the victim was used as source material.

The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a fine up to $6,250. It becomes a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine up to $125,000, if the person has a prior conviction under the statute at the time of the offense. Prosecutors must also prove the discloser acted with intent to harass, humiliate or injure the person depicted, and that a reasonable person would be harassed, humiliated or injured by the disclosure.

For minors, Oregon's CSAM statutes (ORS 163.665 to 163.693) already covered computer-generated depictions before HB 2299, because ORS 163.665 defines "visual depiction" to include computer-generated images and pictures. No real child needs to appear in the image; AI-generated sexual imagery involving minors triggers those provisions independently of ORS 163.472.

Oregon does provide a statutory civil remedy, and it reaches deepfakes. ORS 30.833 gives a person depicted in an image disclosed in violation of ORS 163.472 a civil action for an injunction, damages or other appropriate relief, irrespective of any criminal prosecution or its outcome. Because that section keys to ORS 163.472 by reference, the digitally created depictions HB 2299 added to the criminal definition fall inside it as well. A prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of special and general damages (including damages for emotional distress) or statutory damages of $5,000 per plaintiff against each defendant found liable, plus an amount equal to any economic gain the defendant received from the disclosure and punitive damages; the court may award reasonable attorney fees. A separate statute, ORS 30.831, covers nudity images made or disseminated where the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of personal privacy and carries compensatory damages, attorney fees and a two-year filing deadline, but its definition of a visual image is tied to a camera or similar device, so it does not reach a wholly synthetic depiction. Common-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy remain available on top of these.

Election and Political Deepfakes

Oregon enacted ORS 260.268 through SB 1571 in 2024, making it one of the earlier states to address synthetic media in campaign communications. The statute requires any campaign communication that uses synthetic media to include a clear disclosure to the viewer or listener. The Secretary of State is authorized to adopt implementing rules under ORS 260.269.

A violation of the disclosure requirement is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation. The bill carried an emergency clause and took effect when Governor Kotek signed it on March 27, 2024, meaning it applied to the 2024 primary and general election cycles.

The law applies to "campaign communications" supporting or opposing a clearly identified candidate or measure, and SB 1571 removed the usual expenditure threshold, so the disclosure duty applies regardless of the amount spent. The statute exempts satire and parody, bona fide news coverage that acknowledges authenticity questions, and platforms or broadcasters that merely carry a communication produced by someone else. Creators of non-campaign synthetic political content face no disclosure requirement under Oregon law, though the First Amendment landscape for broader mandates remains unsettled after the California injunction.

AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness

Oregon has no statute specifically addressing AI voice cloning or protecting a person's digital likeness against unauthorized commercial use. This is a meaningful gap. Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., eff. July 1, 2024) is the national archetype, extending the state's right of publicity to encompass AI-simulated voices; Oregon has no equivalent.

Under current Oregon law, a victim of AI voice cloning for commercial purposes would need to rely on common-law misappropriation of name or likeness, which requires proving commercial use without consent and resulting damage. That theory is narrower than a statutory right-of-publicity claim and offers no per se damages. The federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress), which would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI digital replicas of voice and likeness, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026) and has not passed either chamber as of mid-2026.

Oregon's data-privacy law, the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (OCPA, ORS Chapter 646A), addresses some AI and data issues but does not cover voice-cloning or likeness exploitation directly. For data-related aspects of AI misuse, see the Oregon Data Privacy Laws page.

Oregon's general AI regulation page covers the broader landscape of AI-specific rules in the state beyond deepfake-specific provisions. The scope there is wider; this page focuses on deepfake and voice-clone liability specifically.

Federal Law That Applies in Oregon

Federal law fills important gaps in Oregon's deepfake framework. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12), signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025, is the first federal law specifically targeting intimate deepfakes of both adults and minors. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, expressly including "digital forgeries" created by AI. Penalties reach two years in prison, or three years when minors are involved. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026.

The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes, with liquidated damages of $150,000 per violation ($250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and is now pending in the House; it is not yet law. An earlier version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. See the DEFIANCE Act news article for the latest status.

Federal CSAM law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) covers computer- and AI-generated images of minors that are indistinguishable from real minors, independent of any state coverage. There is no First Amendment defense for such material after the PROTECT Act fix.

The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the TCPA, making AI voice-clone robocalls without prior express consent illegal nationwide. The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, eff. April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive AI impersonation of government entities and businesses; the extension to individual-person impersonation remains an unfinalized proposed rule as of mid-2026. Impersonating a family member is also the core of a common phone scam, sometimes using a cloned voice; our guide to family emergency and grandparent scams explains how those calls work and what to do before paying.

What Victims Can Do

Oregon victims of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes have several avenues. First, report to local law enforcement for prosecution under ORS 163.472. The statute reaches anyone who knowingly causes the image to be disclosed; a person who creates a deepfake but never disseminates it falls outside ORS 163.472. Oregon's recording law (Oregon Recording Laws) is mixed rather than all-party: ORS 165.540(1)(a) allows a phone call to be obtained with the consent of at least one participant, while ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants in an in-person conversation, or a call held through a video conferencing program (ORS 165.535(1)), be specifically informed that it is being obtained. That law does not govern deepfakes, but it reflects the state's general privacy orientation.

Second, victims can submit a takedown notice through the TAKE IT DOWN Act mechanism. Platforms covered by the Act must remove flagged intimate deepfake content within 48 hours of a valid victim notice. The FTC enforces platform compliance.

Third, civil litigation is available, and Oregon has a statute for it. ORS 30.833 lets a person depicted in an image disclosed in violation of ORS 163.472 sue for an injunction, damages or other appropriate relief whether or not a prosecution ever happens. A prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000 per plaintiff against each defendant found liable, plus an amount equal to any economic gain the defendant received from the disclosure and punitive damages, and the court may award reasonable attorney fees. Common-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts can be pleaded alongside it.

For political synthetic media, complaints about campaign communications that lack required disclosures can be filed with the Oregon Secretary of State's Elections Division under ORS 260.345. The Secretary of State may sue to enjoin violations, and a circuit court imposes the civil penalty of up to $10,000, which the statute makes the exclusive remedy for a violation.

Penalties at a Glance

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Oregon deepfake laws and related federal statutes. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area change quickly; a licensed Oregon attorney can advise you on how the current law applies to your specific situation.

For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.

More Oregon Laws

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Oregon?

It depends on the type. Knowingly disclosing a nonconsensual intimate deepfake of an adult, with intent to harass, humiliate or injure, is a crime under ORS 163.472, as amended by HB 2299 effective January 1, 2026. The law covers digitally created or AI-generated depictions that are reasonably realistic. Other kinds of deepfakes, such as non-sexual political satire or commercial impersonation, are not covered by a separate Oregon criminal statute, though federal law and civil tort theories may apply.

Is deepfake porn a crime in Oregon?

Yes. Distributing a nonconsensual intimate deepfake image or video of an adult without their consent violates ORS 163.472 (as amended by HB 2299, eff. Jan. 1, 2026). The offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 364 days / $6,250), rising to a Class C felony (up to 5 years / $125,000) if the offender has a prior conviction under the statute. The statute expressly covers AI-generated depictions that are reasonably realistic, so no real intimate footage of the victim is required.

Are AI voice clones illegal in Oregon?

Not under a specific Oregon statute. Oregon has no right-of-publicity law and no dedicated AI voice-cloning statute. If AI voice cloning is used for commercial gain without consent, a victim may pursue a common-law misappropriation claim, but that theory is narrower and harder to win than a statutory claim. The federal FTC Impersonation Rule covers AI voice fraud targeting government and business identity, and the FCC's TCPA ruling covers AI voice-clone robocalls. A proposed federal NO FAKES Act would add broader federal protection, but it has not passed as of mid-2026.

Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in Oregon?

Yes, in the intimate-image context. ORS 30.833 gives a person depicted in an image disclosed in violation of ORS 163.472 a civil action for an injunction, damages or other appropriate relief, irrespective of any criminal prosecution, and because it keys to ORS 163.472 by reference it reaches the digitally created depictions HB 2299 added. A prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000 per plaintiff against each defendant found liable, plus any economic gain the defendant received from the disclosure and punitive damages, with attorney fees at the court's discretion. Common-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy can be pleaded alongside it. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act requires platform removal within 48 hours but does not itself create a private civil cause of action. The federal DEFIANCE Act, which passed the Senate in January 2026 and is pending in the House, would add a $150,000 liquidated-damages civil right of action, but it is not yet law.

Does Oregon law require disclosure when AI is used in political ads?

Yes. ORS 260.268, enacted by SB 1571 in March 2024, requires campaign communications that use synthetic media to include a clear disclosure. A violation is subject to a civil penalty up to $10,000, imposed by a circuit court in proceedings the Oregon Secretary of State may bring. The law applies to campaign communications supporting or opposing a clearly identified candidate or measure, regardless of the amount spent, and exempts satire and parody.

What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in Oregon?

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that applies in every state, including Oregon. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate images of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim notice. It operates alongside Oregon's own ORS 163.472 law; federal and state charges can both apply to the same conduct.

Are AI-generated images of minors illegal in Oregon even if no real child was used?

Yes. Oregon's CSAM statutes (ORS 163.665 to 163.693) already covered computer-generated depictions of minors before HB 2299. No real child needs to appear in the image. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (PROTECT Act) independently covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors, with no First Amendment defense for such material.