Hawaii Deepfake Regulation Act 2026

Overview

Hawaii House Bill 2137 (HB 2137) for the 2026 Regular Session, officially titled "RELATING TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE," addresses the growing concerns surrounding deepfake technology and its potential for misuse. The legislation seeks to protect individuals from harmful uses of realistic digital imitations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) by establishing prohibitions, mandating disclosures, and providing civil remedies for those who are harmed. The legislature explicitly recognizes that deepfake technology enables the realistic digital imitation of an individual's voice, face, likeness, and performance, and that malicious uses have been documented in areas such as identity theft, fraud, election interference, cyberbullying, and non-consensual pornography. Victims of such malicious uses often endure significant reputational, financial, and emotional harm, with detection rates for deepfake imitations remaining challenging even for experts.

The bill aims to fill gaps left by federal law, which currently addresses only limited scenarios of malicious deepfake use, such as explicit content targeting minors, but leaves broad areas of consumer and reputational protection unaddressed. Hawaii's legislature asserts a compelling state interest in preventing fraud, identity theft, defamation, and emotional distress, while simultaneously safeguarding lawful speech. The core purpose of HB 2137 is to prohibit specific harmful uses of AI-generated likenesses, mandate clear disclosure for realistic AI depictions, and establish civil remedies for individuals injured by unauthorized uses of AI. This comprehensive approach underscores Hawaii's commitment to balancing technological innovation with robust protections for its residents' rights and well-being.

Definitions

Central to Hawaii HB 2137 are several key definitions that delineate the scope and application of the proposed regulations. "Artificial intelligence" or "AI" is defined as a machine-based system that, for a given set of human-defined objectives, can make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. This system typically utilizes machine and human-based inputs to achieve its functions, encompassing a broad range of AI technologies capable of generating or manipulating content. This definition is crucial as it establishes the technological boundary within which the deepfake regulations apply, focusing on systems that demonstrate a degree of autonomy in decision-making or content generation.

Another critical term is "realistic," which refers to content that is so lifelike that a reasonable person would believe that a depiction, audio, or video appearing to portray an actual individual's voice, face, likeness, or performance is authentic. This threshold of realism is vital for determining when the disclosure requirements and prohibitions against harmful uses are triggered, ensuring that the law targets genuinely deceptive or misleading AI-generated content rather than clearly fantastical or obviously altered media. The bill also defines "advertisement" as a message published in any medium with the primary purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, a product, service, or commercial transaction. These precise definitions are designed to provide clarity for both creators and consumers of AI-generated content, enabling effective enforcement and compliance with the new legal framework.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The governance and institutional framework for Hawaii HB 2137 primarily relies on existing legal structures, empowering both individuals and the state's Attorney General to enforce its provisions. The bill does not establish a new dedicated regulatory body for AI or deepfake oversight. Instead, it integrates the regulation of AI-generated realistic digital imitations into the state's civil legal system. This approach leverages established mechanisms for dispute resolution and legal recourse, allowing for efficient implementation without creating new bureaucratic overhead. The emphasis is on providing actionable pathways for individuals to seek redress when their rights are violated by malicious deepfake usage.

Specifically, the Attorney General is granted the authority to bring actions for injunctive or other equitable relief in instances where the distribution of realistic digital imitations involves broad public interest or widespread harm. This provision ensures that the state can intervene in cases that extend beyond individual harm, addressing systemic issues or widespread deceptive practices that could affect a larger segment of the population or public discourse. This centralized enforcement power for the Attorney General provides a crucial layer of oversight, allowing for a coordinated response to significant violations and reinforcing the state's commitment to protecting its residents from the adverse impacts of deepfake technology. The framework thus combines individual empowerment with strategic state-level intervention.

Key Focus Areas

Hawaii HB 2137 focuses on several critical areas to address the challenges posed by deepfake technology. A primary focus is the prohibition of certain harmful uses of realistic digital imitations. The bill specifically targets the knowing publication of such imitations without the consent of the identifiable individual when these imitations are used in advertisements, cause harm (such as reputational damage or financial loss), or are employed to commit crimes like fraud or defamation. This targeted prohibition aims to prevent the most egregious forms of deepfake misuse while allowing for legitimate and protected forms of speech. The legislation acknowledges the delicate balance between protecting individuals and upholding constitutional rights to free expression, parody, satire, and journalism.

Another key focus area is transparency and disclosure. The bill mandates that any realistic digital imitation that is publicly distributed must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure indicating that it was generated or altered by artificial intelligence. This requirement is designed to combat deception and ensure that consumers can differentiate between authentic content and AI-generated media. The disclosure must be expressed in plain language, such as "This is an AI-generated depiction and not an authentic recording of [person]." This emphasis on transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust and enabling informed decision-making. The bill also establishes civil actions and remedies for individuals injured by unauthorized AI-generated realistic digital imitations, providing a legal pathway for victims to seek justice and compensation.

Implementation Framework

The implementation framework for Hawaii HB 2137 is designed to be directly actionable through existing legal channels, making it effective upon its approval. The bill amends the Hawaii Revised Statutes by adding a new chapter specifically dedicated to "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DIGITAL IMITATION; PERSONAL LIKENESS; PROTECTIONS." This integration into the state's existing legal code ensures that the provisions of HB 2137 are enforceable under established judicial procedures. The legislation outlines clear conditions under which civil actions can be brought, specifying the types of harm that qualify for legal redress and the remedies available to injured parties. This direct incorporation into statutory law provides a robust foundation for its application and enforcement across the state.

Furthermore, the bill provides specific exemptions to its prohibitions and disclosure requirements to avoid stifling legitimate forms of expression. These exemptions include content used for parody, satire, commentary, news reporting, historical or biographical representations, and advertisements for such content, provided the imitation is relevant to the exempted purpose. This nuanced approach demonstrates an understanding of the complexities of digital media and aims to protect artistic, journalistic, and educational uses of AI while preventing malicious exploitation. The implementation framework, therefore, is built on a foundation of clear legal definitions, actionable civil remedies, and carefully considered exemptions, ensuring that the law can be applied effectively and fairly across various contexts of AI-generated content.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Hawaii HB 2137 does not explicitly detail a formal, ongoing monitoring and evaluation framework with specific metrics or review cycles. However, the nature of its enforcement mechanisms inherently provides a form of continuous evaluation through judicial review and the Attorney General's oversight. As civil actions are brought by individuals and the Attorney General intervenes in cases of broad public interest, the courts will interpret and apply the provisions of the bill, thereby shaping its practical implementation and identifying any ambiguities or challenges. This judicial process serves as a de facto mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness and scope of the legislation, allowing for case-by-case refinement of its application.

The Attorney General's ability to initiate actions in instances of widespread harm also functions as a monitoring mechanism, allowing the state to track patterns of deepfake misuse and assess the broader societal impact of the technology. Should certain types of deepfake abuses become prevalent or if the existing remedies prove insufficient, these enforcement actions would highlight areas where further legislative adjustments might be necessary. While not a formal review committee or reporting requirement, the dynamic interplay between individual civil suits and state-level interventions provides an adaptive system for observing the law's impact and informing potential future amendments to better address evolving deepfake technologies and their societal implications.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Hawaii HB 2137 establishes a clear framework for penalties, liability, and appeals, primarily through civil actions. Individuals who are injured by unauthorized realistic digital imitations can pursue civil remedies against the responsible parties. The available remedies include injunctions to stop the distribution of the harmful content, monetary damages, and recovery of legal fees and court costs. Monetary damages can be substantial, with the bill allowing for up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, whichever is greater. Furthermore, punitive damages may be awarded if malice is proven, providing a strong deterrent against intentional and harmful misuse of deepfake technology.

The bill specifies that a cause of action for civil remedies may be brought by the individual or the individual's estate for up to ten years after the death of the individual, provided this does not extend the period of limitation under chapter 657 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This extended period for estates ensures that the rights of individuals are protected even after their passing. In addition to individual actions, the Attorney General is empowered to bring actions for injunctive or other equitable relief in situations where the distribution of realistic digital imitations involves broad public interest or widespread harm. This dual approach to enforcement, combining individual redress with state-level intervention, ensures comprehensive coverage and protection against deepfake abuses. The standard legal appeal processes applicable to civil judgments in Hawaii would apply to decisions made under this new chapter.

Relationship to Other Instruments

Hawaii HB 2137 operates within a broader legal landscape, acknowledging and building upon existing federal and state instruments while addressing specific gaps. The legislature explicitly notes that federal law currently addresses only limited scenarios of malicious deepfake technology use, such as explicit content targeting minors, leaving significant gaps in consumer and reputational protection. This bill is designed to fill these broad gaps by providing state-level protections for Hawaii residents, thereby complementing rather than conflicting with federal statutes. It aims to establish a more comprehensive safety net against identity-based harm caused by AI, particularly in areas not adequately covered by federal legislation.

The bill also includes provisions that clarify its relationship with other legal frameworks, stating that it does not affect existing federal protections for online platforms. This ensures that the state law does not inadvertently undermine or contradict federal regulations governing internet service providers or other online intermediaries. By focusing on the knowing publication of harmful deepfakes and providing specific civil remedies, HB 2137 carves out a distinct regulatory space that enhances individual protections without disrupting the established hierarchy of legal instruments. Its careful drafting reflects an awareness of the need for state laws to integrate seamlessly with, and augment, the existing legal infrastructure, both at the federal and state levels.

National/Federal Alignment

Hawaii HB 2137 demonstrates a clear awareness of the national legal landscape concerning deepfake technology and artificial intelligence. The legislature explicitly states its finding that federal law addresses only limited scenarios of malicious deepfake use, primarily focusing on areas like explicit content targeting minors. This recognition highlights the bill's intent to complement, rather than duplicate, federal efforts by addressing the broad gaps in consumer and reputational protection that remain at the state level. The bill seeks to establish specific state-level safeguards that are tailored to the unique interests and concerns of Hawaii residents, particularly regarding identity-based harm caused by AI-generated content.

By focusing on civil remedies for individuals and empowering the state's Attorney General for cases of widespread harm, HB 2137 aligns with a growing trend among U.S. states to enact their own AI and deepfake regulations in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation. This state-led approach allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to emerging technological challenges. The bill also carefully avoids conflicting with existing federal protections for online platforms, ensuring that its provisions do not impose undue burdens or create regulatory inconsistencies for internet intermediaries. This strategic alignment positions Hawaii's deepfake regulation as a critical component of a multi-layered governance approach, working in concert with, but distinct from, federal statutes to provide more robust protection for its citizens.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References