Compliance

Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake

Synthetic media that appears real and is intended to deceive or harm.

How the laws define this

At their core, these legal standards agree that a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake is synthetic media that portrays an individual or candidate saying or doing something that did not actually occur in reality, designed to mislead a reasonable person or the public. The primary way these definitions diverge is in the scope of who is protected and the specific regulatory conditions applied. Arizona SB 1359, Arizona SB 1359 (2024), and South Carolina HB 3517 narrow their focus to synthetic media depicting an election candidate or political party with the intent to injure a reputation or deceive voters. In contrast, New Hampshire HB 1596 applies more broadly to any depicted person. Additionally, South Carolina HB 3517 uniquely restricts these prohibitions to media distributed within ninety days of an election when required disclosures are absent.

Synthesised from the 4 statutory definitions below. Each one is quoted in full, with its source.

How jurisdictions differ

What is distinctive in each definition, binding law in force first.

Jurisdiction	Instrument	Status	What is distinctive
Arizona, United States	Arizona SB 1359 - Synthetic Media in Elections	In Force	Adds intent to injure the reputation of a candidate or political party or otherwise deceive a voter, plus two alternative tests for misleading a reasonable person.
New Hampshire, United States	New Hampshire HB 1596 - Deepfakes in Elections	In Force	Includes media providing a fundamentally inaccurate impression and specifies intent to mislead the public about the depicted individual's actions or statements.
South Carolina, United States	South Carolina HB 3517 Deceptive and Fraudulent Deepfake Media in Elections	Under Review	Limits to portrayals of a candidate that a reasonable person would believe authentic, omitting explicit intent to injure or deceive voters.
Arizona, United States	Arizona SB 1359 (2024) — Election Communications; Deepfakes; Prohibition (adds Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-1023; Chapter 199, Laws 2024)	In Force	Bases definition on creator's intent plus objective elements like whether it leads a reasonable person to believe depicted events occurred or alters original impression.

What it triggers

In Arizona, creators must include clear AI disclosures when distributing such synthetic media depicting candidates within 90 days of an election.source source
In New Hampshire, distribution of such synthetic media depicting candidates or election officials within 90 days of an election is prohibited without clear disclosure.source
South Carolina HB 3517 proposes to prohibit distribution of such synthetic media depicting political candidates within 90 days of an election absent the required disclosure.source

Definitions (4)

Synthetic media that depicts a candidate or political party with the intent to injure the reputation of the candidate or political party or otherwise deceive a voter, and that either appears to a reasonable person to depict a real individual saying or doing something that did not actually occur in reality, or is intentionally calculated to mislead a reasonable person into concluding that a real individual said or did something that they did not say or do in reality.

Arizona SB 1359 - Synthetic Media in ElectionsDefinition 1 of 4

Synthetic media that portrays a candidate engaging in speech or conduct that did not occur and that a reasonable person would believe to be authentic; such deceptive deepfakes are prohibited when distributed within ninety days of an election absent the required disclosure.

South Carolina HB 3517 Deceptive and Fraudulent Deepfake Media in ElectionsDefinition 2 of 4

Synthetic media that, based on the creator's intent to injure a candidate or political party or to deceive voters and on objective elements (for example, whether a reasonable person would be led to believe the depicted speech or conduct occurred or whether it conveys a fundamentally different impression than an unaltered original), constitutes a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake under the statute.

Arizona SB 1359 (2024) — Election Communications; Deepfakes; Prohibition (adds Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-1023; Chapter 199, Laws 2024)Definition 3 of 4

Synthetic media that appears to show a person doing or saying something they did not actually do or say, or that provides a fundamentally inaccurate impression, and is intended to mislead the public about the actions or statements of the depicted individual.

New Hampshire HB 1596 - Deepfakes in ElectionsDefinition 4 of 4

Not to be confused with

MATERIALLY DECEPTIVE MEDIA

Materially deceptive media emphasizes likelihood of being believed, while this term stresses deceptive intent and election timing prohibitions.

Deep fake video

Deep fake video is limited to video format with intent to deceive, whereas this term covers broader synthetic media often tied to elections.

Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media

Both terms overlap in misleading reasonable persons about reality, but this one applies specifically to election contexts with disclosure rules.

Questions and answers

What disclosures are required for deceptive deepfakes in Arizona elections?

Arizona SB 1359 requires clear AI disclosures for synthetic media depicting candidates distributed within 90 days of an election. Failure to disclose triggers prohibitions.

Does New Hampshire law cover deepfakes of election officials?

Yes, New Hampshire HB 1596 prohibits distribution of deceptive deepfakes depicting candidates or election officials within 90 days of an election without clear disclosure.

What happens if South Carolina HB 3517 passes?

South Carolina HB 3517 would prohibit distributing deceptive deepfakes of political candidates within 90 days of an election without required disclosure and would authorize civil remedies.