South Carolina
South Carolina 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

South Carolina is one of the strongest states on nonconsensual intimate deepfakes: H 3058, signed May 12, 2025, made SC the 50th state to enact an NCII law, and it expressly covers "digitally forged intimate images" generated or substantially modified by AI. No SC law addresses election deepfakes or AI voice cloning.
Information last verified on June 9, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed attorney.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in South Carolina?
Whether a deepfake is illegal in South Carolina depends on the category: sexual content, election interference, or voice and likeness. SC has closed the adult NCII gap with H 3058, extended CSAM law to morphed images of identifiable minors, but has not addressed election deepfakes or AI voice cloning at the state level.
Creating a deepfake is not automatically a crime. The conduct that triggers criminal liability is distribution: sharing, posting, or transmitting an intimate image without the depicted person's consent and, in some cases, with an intent to harm or profit. Simply generating an intimate image without sharing it does not trigger the statute, though other laws (harassment, stalking) could still apply.
The three buckets to know are: (1) sexual deepfakes of adults and AI-CSAM of minors, where SC has passed law; (2) election deepfakes, where SC has no specific statute; and (3) AI voice cloning and digital likeness, where SC also has no specific statute.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
South Carolina H 3058, signed by Governor Henry McMaster on May 12, 2025, added two new sections to the criminal code. Section 16-15-330 defines key terms, including "digitally forged intimate image": any intimate image of an identifiable individual that appears to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction, generated or substantially modified using machine-learning techniques or any other computer-generated or machine-generated means to falsely depict the individual's appearance or conduct.

That definition is broad enough to cover generative AI tools, deepfake video, and photorealistic image synthesis. A victim does not need to prove the exact tool used.
Section 16-15-332 creates the criminal offense of unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. Penalties are tiered by intent:
- First offense, no intent to harm or profit: misdemeanor, up to 1 year imprisonment and/or up to $5,000 fine.
- First offense, with intent to harm or obtain a benefit: felony, up to 5 years imprisonment and/or up to $5,000 fine.
- Subsequent offense, no intent: felony, up to 5 years imprisonment and/or up to $5,000 fine.
- Subsequent offense, with intent: felony, 1 to 10 years imprisonment (mandatory minimum) and/or up to $10,000 fine.
The statute applies to both real and AI-generated intimate images. For AI-generated images, the "digitally forged" definition brings them squarely within coverage. Standard law enforcement exceptions apply.
AI-CSAM: Morphed Images of Identifiable Minors
South Carolina amended its child sexual exploitation statutes through S 29, signed May 22, 2025 as Act No. 58 (amending S.C. Code ss. 16-15-375, -395, -405, and -410). The amendments added the concept of "identifiable minor," covering visual depictions that have been created, adapted, or modified to appear that a recognizable real minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Proof of actual identity is not required; recognizability by face, likeness, or distinguishing characteristics is sufficient.
Penalties for violations involving minors remain severe:
- First-degree sexual exploitation: 3 to 20 years, no parole until the minimum is served, sentences run consecutively.
- Second-degree: 2 to 10 years, same parole restriction.
- Third-degree: up to 10 years.
S 29 covers morphed depictions of identifiable real children. For wholly computer-generated images not depicting any real child, a companion law, S 28 (Act No. 57, also signed May 22, 2025), created S.C. Code s. 16-15-390, a felony punishable by up to 10 years for producing, distributing, or possessing obscene visual representations of child sexual abuse even when the minor depicted does not actually exist. Federal law under (8)(B) (PROTECT Act) independently covers photorealistic AI-generated CSAM that is indistinguishable from a real minor.
Election and Political Deepfakes
South Carolina has not passed an election deepfake statute. There is no state law requiring disclosure of AI-generated political content, no prohibition on synthetic media in campaign advertising, and no criminal penalty specific to election-related deepfakes as of mid-2026. A House bill, H 3517, would ban deceptive deepfakes of a candidate within 90 days of an election, but it has not moved out of the House Judiciary Committee since January 2025.
Political speech, including satire and parody, carries strong First Amendment protection. Some states that passed broad election deepfake bans have faced court challenges: a California law restricting AI election content was struck down and permanently enjoined in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds. Any future SC legislation in this space would face the same constitutional constraints.
For now, existing South Carolina election laws on fraudulent misrepresentation and general fraud statutes may apply in extreme cases, but no deepfake-specific election law exists. Voters and candidates in South Carolina should be aware of this gap.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
South Carolina has no right-of-publicity statute and no law specifically regulating AI-generated voice clones or digital likenesses. The state relies on common law misappropriation, which requires proof of commercial use of a person's name or likeness without consent, a narrower standard that may not reach non-commercial deepfake voice abuse.
Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. ss. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is the national reference point: it extended the right of publicity expressly to AI voice simulations and created a civil cause of action. South Carolina has not moved in that direction.
The proposed NO FAKES Act (S.4591 / H.R.8915, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI digital replicas of voice and likeness. It has not passed either chamber as of mid-2026 and is a bill, not law.
If you are a South Carolina performer, broadcaster, or public figure whose voice or likeness has been cloned without consent, the available paths are: (1) common law misappropriation if the use is commercial; (2) the TAKE IT DOWN Act if the clone is used in intimate imagery; and (3) the FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) if the clone impersonates you for commercial or government purposes.
Federal Law That Applies in South Carolina
Several federal laws apply in South Carolina regardless of the gaps in state law.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the most significant. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Penalties reach up to 2 years in federal prison (3 years when a minor is depicted). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the FTC enforces this removal obligation. The compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). AI voice clone calls to cell phones without prior express written consent are illegal under existing TCPA. The FCC issued a $6 million fine (finalized September 2024) against the consultant responsible for the fake-Biden primary robocall.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B), PROTECT Act 2003) covers computer-generated or AI-generated images that are "indistinguishable" from depictions of a real minor in sexually explicit conduct. No actual child needs to be involved; the photorealistic standard controls.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837 / H.R.3562, 119th Congress) is a proposed bill, not current law. It would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with statutory damages of $150,000 per violation ($250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The 118th Congress version passed the Senate in 2024 but died in the House. The current version, S.1837, passed the Senate again by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House. Until the House passes it and the President signs it, it is not law. For more background, see our article on the DEFIANCE Act and deepfake porn victims' rights to sue.
The NO FAKES Act (S.4591) is also a proposed bill, not current law. It would add federal voice and likeness protections but has not passed either chamber.
What Victims Can Do
If you are a South Carolina victim of a nonconsensual intimate deepfake, several options exist today.
For criminal enforcement, report to your local law enforcement agency or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Violations of S.C. Code s. 16-15-332 are criminal offenses; present officers with the URL, screenshots, and any identifying information about the creator. You can also report to the FBI (tips.fbi.gov) for federal TAKE IT DOWN Act violations.
For platform removal, the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires platforms to remove flagged intimate content within 48 hours of victim notice. Submit a report directly to the platform's trust and safety team, citing the federal law. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates the CyberTipline, which accepts reports of CSAM including AI-generated material.
For civil remedies, consult a South Carolina attorney. H 3058 is primarily a criminal statute; civil damages for NCII deepfakes may depend on common law tort theories (intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy) until SC courts or the legislature clarify the civil landscape. If Congress passes and the President signs the DEFIANCE bill, it would add a federal civil cause of action.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing intimate deepfake, no intent to harm | S.C. Code s. 16-15-332 (H 3058) | Misdemeanor: up to 1 yr / $5,000 (first offense) |
| Distributing intimate deepfake, with intent to harm or profit | S.C. Code s. 16-15-332 (H 3058) | Felony: up to 5 yrs / $5,000 (first offense) |
| Repeat offense, with intent | S.C. Code s. 16-15-332 (H 3058) | Felony: 1-10 yrs mandatory minimum / $10,000 |
| AI-morphed CSAM, identifiable minor, first degree | S.C. Code s. 16-15-395 (S 29, 2025) | 3-20 yrs (no parole until min served) |
| AI-morphed CSAM, identifiable minor, second degree | S.C. Code s. 16-15-405 (S 29, 2025) | 2-10 yrs (no parole until min served) |
| Obscene AI-generated depiction of child sexual abuse, no real minor required | S.C. Code s. 16-15-390 (S 28, 2025) | Felony: up to 10 yrs |
| AI-CSAM, wholly computer-generated, indistinguishable from minor | 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (federal PROTECT Act) | Up to 10 yrs federal prison |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act, P.L. 119-12 | Up to 2 yrs (3 yrs if minor) |
| AI voice clone in robocall without consent | TCPA, (FCC 24-17) | FTC/FCC enforcement; civil suits |

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about South Carolina and federal deepfake laws, not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly: South Carolina passed H 3058 in May 2025, and federal legislation such as the TAKE IT DOWN Act took effect the same month. If you need advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed South Carolina attorney.
More South Carolina Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in South Carolina?
Creating a deepfake is not automatically a crime under South Carolina law. The crime under S.C. Code s. 16-15-332 (H 3058) is distributing a nonconsensual intimate image, including AI-generated ones, without the depicted person's consent. Simply generating such an image without sharing it does not trigger the statute, though other laws such as harassment or stalking could apply depending on the circumstances.
Is deepfake porn a crime in South Carolina?
Yes. South Carolina H 3058 (signed May 12, 2025) expressly covers digitally forged intimate images: AI-generated or substantially modified images that falsely depict someone in an intimate context. Distributing such an image without consent is a misdemeanor (no intent to harm) or a felony (with intent to harm or for profit). The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) adds a parallel federal criminal prohibition.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in South Carolina?
H 3058 is primarily a criminal statute. Civil remedies for deepfake victims in South Carolina currently depend on common law tort theories: intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. If the DEFIANCE Act becomes law, it would add a federal civil right to sue for $150,000 in liquidated damages ($250,000 in cases involving actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment), but as of mid-2026 the bill has passed only the Senate (January 13, 2026) and remains pending in the House.
Are AI voice clones illegal in South Carolina?
South Carolina has no right-of-publicity statute and no law specifically prohibiting AI voice cloning. Federal law fills some gaps: the FCC ruled that AI-generated voices in robocalls violate the TCPA, and the FTC Impersonation Rule covers AI voice cloning used to impersonate businesses or government entities. For non-commercial voice abuse, South Carolina currently offers only common law misappropriation claims.
Does South Carolina have an election deepfake law?
No. South Carolina has not passed any law specifically addressing AI-generated deepfakes in political advertising or campaigns. Existing laws on fraudulent misrepresentation may apply in extreme cases, but there is no deepfake-specific election statute. No federal election deepfake law has been passed either, as of mid-2026.
How does the TAKE IT DOWN Act apply in South Carolina?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that applies in every state, including South Carolina. It makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate AI-generated images of adults (up to 2 years) or minors (up to 3 years). It also requires online platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. South Carolina's state law (H 3058) runs in parallel, so violators may face both state and federal prosecution.
What should I do if someone posted a deepfake of me in South Carolina?
Report to the platform directly first: the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires removal within 48 hours of notice. Preserve all evidence (screenshots, URLs, account information) before requesting removal. Report to local law enforcement or SLED for state criminal charges under S.C. Code s. 16-15-332. File a tip with the FBI (tips.fbi.gov) for federal TAKE IT DOWN violations. Consult a South Carolina attorney about potential civil claims.
Are AI-generated child sexual abuse images illegal in South Carolina?
Yes, on multiple levels. South Carolina S 29 (Act No. 58, signed May 22, 2025) amended S.C. Code ss. 16-15-375, -395, -405, and -410 to cover morphed or AI-modified images depicting an identifiable real minor, and S 28 (Act No. 57) created S.C. Code s. 16-15-390, which criminalizes obscene AI-generated depictions of child sexual abuse even when no real minor exists. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (PROTECT Act) independently covers photorealistic AI-generated CSAM indistinguishable from depictions of a real minor. All carry severe penalties.
Updates
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.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16: CRIMES AND OFFENSES
§ 16-15-332Disseminating intimate images without consentIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(A) A person who intentionally disseminates an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image of another person without the effective consent of the depicted person is guilty of the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. A person intentionally disseminates an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image if he has knowledge that the image was obtained or created under circumstances when he knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Any dissemination of multiple intimate images of the same individual as part of a common act is a single offense. The fact that the identifiable individual: (1) provided affirmative consent for the creation of the intimate image shall not establish that the individual provided effective consent for the dissemination of the intimate image; and (2) disclosed the intimate image to another individual shall not establish that the identifiable individual provided effective consent for the dissemination of the intimate image by the person alleged to have violated this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Also relied on in: South Carolina Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, South Carolina Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Landlords (2026), South Carolina Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 16-15-390Possessing depictions of minors engaging in sexual activityIn force
(A) As used in this section: (1) "Obscene" has the same meaning as Section 16-15-305. (2) "Visual depiction or representation" means and includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means that is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means. (B) Any person who knowingly produces, distributes, solicits, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction or representation that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, sexually explicit activity, or sexually explicit nudity, and is obscene, or attempts or conspires to do so, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned no more than ten years.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
§ 16-15-375Definitions applicable to Sections 16-15-385 through 16-15-425In force
The following definitions apply to Section 16-15-385, disseminating or exhibiting to minors harmful material or performances; Section 16-15-387, employing a person under the age of eighteen years to appear in a state of sexually explicit nudity in a public place; Section 16-15-395, first degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-405, second degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-410, third degree sexual exploitation of a minor; Section 16-15-412, morphed image of an identifiable minor; arrest warrant; Section 16-15-415, promoting prostitution of a minor; and Section 16-15-425, participating in prostitution of a minor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases:
- Larry Tyler v. State (Court of Appeals of South Carolina 2022)“…that depicts sexually explicit nudity or sexual activity." S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-375(1) (2015). Although Child and Sister in…”
- State v. Oertel (Court of Appeals of South Carolina 2018)“…on to engage or participate in a sexual activity . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-375(5) (2015) ("'Sexual activity' includes…”
- DING (Board of Immigration Appeals 2018, 27 I. & N. Dec. 295)“…167.007(1) (1994); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5902(A) (1994); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-375(4) (1994); S.D. Codified Laws § 22-23-1…”
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)
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
- S.C. H 3058: Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (signed May 12, 2025)(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.C. Code ss. 16-15-375, -395, -405, -410 as amended by S 29, Act No. 58 (signed May 22, 2025): AI-CSAM morphed images(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B): Federal CSAM definition covering AI-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17: AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 CFR Part 461 (effective April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- DEFIANCE Act S.1837 (119th Congress): federal civil action for sexual deepfake victims (passed Senate Jan. 13, 2026, pending in House)(congress.gov).gov
- S.C. S 28, Act No. 57 (signed May 22, 2025): obscene visual representations of child sexual abuse, S.C. Code s. 16-15-390(scstatehouse.gov).gov