Deepfake laws by state: eight statutes from seven legislatures, in a table

This page is part of the deepfake detection hub and extends the question is a deepfake illegal from federal and foreign texts down to the states. California's two statutes were not reachable on 9 November 2026 and are left out.

01Which state statutes are in the table?

The table holds every statute whose text was read on the state legislature's own site: the section, the conduct it reaches, the penalty class the text states and the history line the site prints. Where a history line gives an effective date, as Texas does, it is quoted; where it gives only session law citations, the years are given and nothing more is inferred.

The classification words (misdemeanor, felony, gross misdemeanor, hard labor) are the states' own and are not comparable across states without each state's sentencing code.

02How do the statutes define a deepfake?

Six of the eight texts define the object, and they define it by effect rather than by method. Texas Penal Code 21.165 defines "deep fake media" as a depiction "created or altered through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means" that "appears to a reasonable person to depict a real person, indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the real person, performing an action that did not occur in reality" (Texas Penal Code chapter 21). Minnesota's 609.771 requires a recording "so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct" and whose production "was substantially dependent upon technical means" (Minnesota Statutes 609.771).

Louisiana's definition is the only one to add an exclusion: a "deepfake" in RS 14:73.13 "does not include any material that constitutes a work of political, public interest, or newsworthy value, including commentary, criticism, satire, or parody", or material carrying "a clear disclosure visible throughout the duration of the recording" (Louisiana RS 14:73.13). New York and Washington do not define deepfake at all; both define "digitization", Washington adding that it "includes, but is not limited to, creation or alteration of an image by using artificial intelligence" (RCW 9A.86.030). These are the same realism tests the research papers avoid, as the research definitions of deepfake page shows: a benchmark sorts fakes by how they were made, a statute by what a viewer would believe.

03What conduct do the intimate image statutes reach?

The six intimate image statutes differ in which act is the offence. Florida and Louisiana reach creation: Florida's 836.13 makes it a felony of the third degree when a person "willfully generates any altered sexual depiction of an identifiable person, without the consent of the identifiable person", and separately when a person solicits or maliciously promotes one (Florida Statutes 836.13). Louisiana reaches creation and possession only where a minor is depicted, and distribution for any person. Texas reaches production and distribution, and since 2025 threats as well.

Virginia, New York and Washington reach dissemination. Virginia's 18.2-386.2 punishes a person who "with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells" the image (Code of Virginia 18.2-386.2). New York's 245.15 requires "intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person" (New York Penal Law 245.15). Washington requires that the discloser "knows or reasonably should know that disclosure would cause harm". Three texts add that a disclaimer is no defence: Texas, Florida and, for consent to creation, Washington.

04What do the two election statutes require?

Both election statutes turn on timing and intent, not on the realism test alone. Texas Election Code 255.004(d) makes it an offence, "with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election", to create a deep fake video and cause it "to be published or distributed within 30 days of an election"; subsection (e) defines the video as one "created with the intent to deceive, that appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not occur in reality" (Texas Election Code chapter 255). The offence is a Class A misdemeanor and the subsection took effect on 1 September 2019.

Minnesota's 609.771 sets a longer window, "within 90 days before a political party nominating convention" or after the start of absentee voting, and scales its penalty: "imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both" in ordinary cases, more with intent to cause violence or with a prior conviction. A candidate convicted under it forfeits the nomination or office. Neither statute covers a deepfake of a candidate outside the window.

05What this table leaves out

The table counts eight statutes in seven states because those are the texts that were read; it does not say how many states have such laws, because no primary source lists them. California's Civil Code 1708.86 and Elections Code 20010 were not reachable on 9 November 2026 and are not described. No row gives an effective date that the statute's own history line does not print, so Minnesota, Florida, Louisiana and Washington carry session law citations rather than dates. The federal texts, the EU AI Act and the UK offences are on the laws by jurisdiction page.

The statutes also say nothing about detection. None requires a detector, names a benchmark or sets an error rate, and none distinguishes a face swap from a reenactment, a distinction the reenactment methods explained page shows matters to detectors. Louisiana's disclosure exclusion assumes a viewer can tell what they are looking at, the assumption the passive and active liveness checks page examines.