Getting Real on the NO FAKES Act
As the technology landscape moves further into a world of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), there are questions of how well the law will be able to keep up.
Sponsored by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the NO FAKES Act of 2025 (short for “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe”) attempts to be forward-looking about the potential threat of so-called AI “deepfakes” by granting individuals a federal right over their likenesses to prevent “digital replicas.”
Under terms of the bill, an “online service” could be held liable for the “[t]he public display, distribution, transmission, or communication of, or the act of otherwise making available to the public, a digital replica without authorization by the applicable right holder.” The bill creates a safe harbor for online services that distribute such replicas if they create a notice-and-removal system and terminate accountholders that promulgate such replicas.
A U.S. House version has also been introduced by Reps. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.).
In this post, I will consider the NO FAKES Act using the same criteria I previously employed to examine the TAKE IT DOWN Act: whether the proposed legislation solves a genuine problem, what its potential for collateral censorship might be, and whether it might conflict with the First Amendment.