United States - Montana - Deepfakes Regulation (SB 25)

Overview

Montana Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), enacted in 2025, represents a significant legislative effort by the State of Montana to address the burgeoning challenges posed by artificial intelligence, specifically in the context of political communications and electoral integrity. The bill, formally titled “AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, ACTUAL DAMAGES, AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLITICAL PRACTICES; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES,” underscores the state's proactive stance against the potential misuse of generative AI technologies. The primary objective of SB 25 is to prevent the dissemination of deceptive AI-generated content, commonly known as deepfakes, that could mislead voters or damage the reputation of candidates and political parties during critical election periods. The legislation acknowledges the revolutionary innovations in generative AI systems and their capacity to produce highly realistic image, audio, video, text, and multimedia content, recognizing the inherent threat these capabilities pose to free and fair elections.

The impetus for this legislation stems from a growing awareness of deepfakes' potential to spread misinformation and disinformation at an unprecedented scale and speed, potentially tainting a voter's opinion of a candidate with fabricated representations. Lawmakers expressed concerns that false, negative portrayals created through deepfake technology could exist indefinitely online, causing permanent damage to an officeholder's, incumbent's, or candidate's reputation and even jeopardizing their safety. By establishing clear regulations, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms, SB 25 aims to provide a legal framework that protects the democratic process from manipulative AI-generated content while balancing considerations of free speech. The bill focuses specifically on election-related deepfakes, setting it apart from other AI legislation in Montana that addresses explicit synthetic media or government use of AI.

Definitions

Central to the clarity and enforceability of Montana SB 25 are its precise definitions of key terms, which delineate the scope of the regulation. The bill defines "AI-generated content" as image, video, audio, multimedia, or text content that is substantially created or modified by generative artificial intelligence in a manner that materially alters the meaning or significance that a reasonable person understands from the content. This definition is crucial for distinguishing between minor edits and significant alterations intended to deceive. Importantly, the term explicitly excludes content where the modification is minimal and does not materially change the original meaning or significance, ensuring that minor enhancements or standard editing practices are not inadvertently captured by the regulation.

Building upon the definition of AI-generated content, SB 25 defines a "deepfake" as AI-generated content or synthetic media that depicts a candidate or political party with the intent to injure the reputation of the candidate or party or otherwise deceive a voter. This definition emphasizes the malicious or deceptive intent behind the creation and distribution of such content. Furthermore, a deepfake is characterized as an image, audio recording, or video recording created or altered by artificial intelligence or other digital technology to produce a realistic but false representation. The legislation also clarifies that "election communication" and "electioneering communication" are specific types of political messaging distributed within certain timeframes before an election, thereby limiting the application of the deepfake regulations to the most sensitive periods of political campaigning. These clear definitions are vital for legal interpretation and for ensuring that the law targets genuinely deceptive practices rather than legitimate forms of political satire or commentary.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The governance and institutional framework for enforcing Montana SB 25 is primarily centered around the Commissioner of Political Practices, a state office responsible for overseeing election laws and campaign finance. Under the provisions of SB 25, the Commissioner of Political Practices is empowered to receive and investigate complaints alleging violations of the deepfake regulations in election communications. This mechanism provides an accessible avenue for candidates, political parties, or concerned citizens to report suspected instances of deceptive AI-generated content. Upon receiving a complaint, the Commissioner is tasked with conducting an investigation to determine whether a violation has occurred, particularly focusing on whether the deepfake was distributed within the prohibited timeframe and whether the distributor knew or should have known it was a deepfake.

Should the Commissioner find a violation, the framework outlines a graduated enforcement approach. For an initial violation, the Commissioner has the authority to issue an administrative fine, which can be up to $500. This administrative penalty serves as a deterrent for first-time offenders and allows for a swift response to less egregious breaches. However, for repeat offenders, the legislation mandates a more severe course of action: the Commissioner is required to refer the case for criminal prosecution. This referral is directed to a county attorney or the state attorney general, who would then pursue criminal charges. The escalation to criminal prosecution, particularly for felony convictions after three violations, underscores the seriousness with which Montana views repeated attempts to manipulate elections through deepfake technology, with penalties potentially reaching up to two years in state prison.

Key Focus Areas

Montana SB 25's key focus areas are meticulously designed to safeguard the integrity of the state's electoral processes by targeting the malicious use of deepfakes in political discourse. The core prohibition established by the Act dictates that a person, corporation, committee, political party, or other entity involved in an official election capacity may not, within 60 days of the initiation of voting in an election, distribute, disseminate, publish, broadcast, transmit, or display, or pay for or sponsor the production of, an election communication or electioneering communication that they knew or should have known is a deepfake of a candidate or political party on the ballot. This 60-day window is critical, as it covers the period immediately preceding an election when voters are most actively engaged and susceptible to last-minute information, making the impact of deceptive content potentially most significant. The "knew or should have known" standard places a reasonable burden on political actors to exercise due diligence regarding the authenticity of content they disseminate.

The legislation also provides for crucial exceptions to this prohibition, primarily centered around transparency and disclosure. An election communication or electioneering communication that includes a deepfake is exempt from the prohibition if it contains a clear and conspicuous disclosure statement. This statement must explicitly state, "This ___ image / audio / video / multimedia) has been significantly edited by artificial intelligence and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful." This disclosure requirement is fundamental to the bill's aim of promoting transparency, allowing voters to be aware when content has been artificially generated or manipulated. By mandating such disclosures, SB 25 seeks to empower voters with the information necessary to critically evaluate the content they encounter, thereby mitigating the deceptive impact of deepfakes while respecting free speech considerations. The bill's focus on both explicit prohibition and mandatory disclosure demonstrates a balanced approach to regulating emerging AI technologies in the political sphere.

Implementation Framework

The implementation framework for Montana SB 25 is structured to provide both civil and administrative avenues for addressing violations, ensuring a multi-faceted approach to enforcement. The Act allows for private civil actions, enabling individuals who have been harmed by the dissemination of deepfakes to seek redress. In such civil actions, it is not strictly necessary for actual damages to be alleged or proven to seek injunctive relief. However, if actual damages are alleged and proven, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of actual damages sustained, in addition to fees and costs of suit. Furthermore, the bill allows for the recovery of punitive damages, up to $10,000, in cases where malicious intent or egregious harm can be demonstrated. This provision for punitive damages serves as a significant deterrent against intentional and harmful deepfake creation and distribution.

Beyond civil litigation, the implementation framework incorporates an administrative complaint process managed by the Commissioner of Political Practices. Any person who believes a violation of the deepfake regulation has occurred can file a complaint with the Commissioner. This administrative route offers a potentially quicker and less resource-intensive method for addressing violations compared to full civil litigation. The Commissioner's office is then responsible for investigating these complaints, gathering evidence, and making a determination. This dual approach of civil remedies and administrative enforcement ensures that there are multiple mechanisms available to hold those who misuse deepfake technology accountable, thereby reinforcing the integrity of Montana's election processes. The burden of establishing a violation in a civil action rests with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate the violation by clear and convincing evidence, a standard that requires a high degree of certainty in the presented facts.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The monitoring and evaluation of compliance with Montana SB 25 primarily fall under the purview of the Commissioner of Political Practices. This state agency is explicitly tasked with the responsibility of receiving and investigating complaints related to the use of deepfakes in election communications. The Commissioner's office serves as the central point for identifying potential violations, initiating inquiries, and gathering the necessary evidence to determine whether the Act's provisions have been breached. This involves scrutinizing election communications distributed within the 60-day window before an election, assessing whether they contain AI-generated content that constitutes a deepfake, and evaluating if the responsible parties knew or should have known about its deceptive nature. The investigative powers of the Commissioner are crucial for the effective enforcement of the law, allowing for a systematic review of alleged infractions and the collection of factual information.

While the bill does not explicitly detail a comprehensive, proactive monitoring program beyond complaint-driven investigations, the existence of penalties and civil remedies inherently encourages self-monitoring and compliance among political actors. The threat of injunctive relief, damages, and administrative fines, coupled with the potential for criminal prosecution, incentivizes campaigns, parties, and individuals to carefully vet the authenticity of their communications. The ongoing public discourse around AI and deepfakes, alongside media scrutiny, also contributes to an informal monitoring environment. Furthermore, the Commissioner's role in referring repeat offenders for criminal prosecution acts as a significant deterrent, aiming to prevent a pattern of non-compliance. The effectiveness of SB 25 will likely be evaluated over time based on the number of complaints received, the outcomes of investigations, the imposition of penalties, and ultimately, the perceived impact on the integrity of Montana's elections in the face of evolving AI capabilities.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Montana SB 25 establishes a robust framework of penalties and liabilities designed to deter the illicit use of deepfakes in election communications and provide avenues for redress. For civil actions, the Act stipulates that a plaintiff who is falsely depicted in an unlabeled deepfake can seek injunctive relief from a court to prevent its further distribution. This immediate legal recourse is vital for mitigating the rapid spread and lasting damage that deepfakes can inflict. Beyond injunctive relief, successful plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual damages suffered as a result of the deepfake, along with the costs and fees associated with the lawsuit. To further discourage malicious intent, the bill allows for the recovery of punitive damages, which can be awarded up to $10,000. This combination of injunctive relief and financial penalties aims to compensate victims and punish offenders, emphasizing the serious nature of deepfake misuse in elections.

In addition to civil remedies, SB 25 outlines administrative and criminal penalties. The Commissioner of Political Practices, after investigating a complaint and finding a violation, is authorized to issue an administrative fine of up to $500 for an initial offense. This administrative penalty provides a streamlined mechanism for addressing less severe or first-time infractions. However, the legislation escalates for repeat offenders: if an entity commits multiple violations, the Commissioner is required to refer the case for criminal prosecution by a county attorney or the state attorney general. For repeat offenders, particularly after three violations, criminal penalties can be substantial, potentially leading to a felony conviction and up to two years in state prison. The bill also specifies that in any civil action alleging a violation, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the violation by clear and convincing evidence, setting a high standard for proving deepfake misuse. While the bill text primarily focuses on the initial enforcement, the judicial process for appeals of both civil judgments and criminal convictions would follow standard Montana legal procedures, allowing for due process and review.

Relationship to Other Instruments

Montana SB 25 operates within a broader legislative landscape concerning artificial intelligence and digital media, both at the state and federal levels. While SB 25 specifically targets deepfakes in election communications, Montana has also enacted or considered other significant legislation addressing various facets of AI. For instance, Senate Bill 413 (SB 413) creates the crime of disclosing certain explicit synthetic media, focusing on non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, and provides definitions and penalties for such offenses. House Bill 513 (HB 513) revises laws related to the property right in the use of names, voices, and visual likenesses of individuals, establishing protections against unauthorized AI-generated likenesses for commercial use. House Bill 514 (HB 514) expands offenses of violating privacy in communications to include possessing and threatening to disclose real or digitally fabricated sexual deepfakes for extortion. These complementary laws collectively form a comprehensive approach to regulating different aspects of AI-generated content within the state.

Furthermore, Montana has also addressed AI in government use through legislation like House Bill 178 (HB 178), which places regulations on how state government agencies can employ AI, prohibiting its use for manipulation, unlawful discrimination, or broad surveillance, and requiring disclosure for government-produced AI materials. While these other instruments tackle distinct issues such as explicit content, intellectual property, or government AI ethics, SB 25 remains singularly focused on the unique threats deepfakes pose to the integrity of democratic elections. Its provisions are designed to integrate with existing election laws and campaign finance regulations, adding a new layer of protection against technologically advanced forms of political deception. At the federal level, while there is ongoing discussion and proposed legislation regarding AI and deepfakes, state laws like Montana SB 25 fill a critical gap by providing specific, enforceable regulations tailored to state-level electoral processes, contributing to a patchwork of regulations across the United States.

International Alignment

As a state-level legislative act, Montana SB 25 primarily focuses on regulating deepfakes within the specific context of election communications and electioneering communications within the State of Montana. Therefore, it does not have direct international alignment or explicit provisions for cross-border cooperation or mutual recognition with other countries' AI regulations. The scope of its application is inherently limited to the jurisdiction of Montana and its electoral processes. However, the principles underlying SB 25, such as the commitment to electoral integrity, transparency in political discourse, and the prevention of misinformation through AI-generated content, resonate with broader international concerns regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on democratic systems worldwide. Many nations and international bodies are grappling with similar challenges posed by deepfakes and are exploring various regulatory approaches.

While not directly aligned, Montana's enactment of SB 25 contributes to the global conversation and evolving legal landscape surrounding AI governance. The state's experience in defining deepfakes, establishing disclosure requirements, and implementing enforcement mechanisms for election-related AI misuse can offer insights to other jurisdictions. The legislative intent to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to fair elections and protection against reputational harm, aligns with universal democratic values. Although the specific mechanisms of SB 25 are tailored to Montana's legal and political environment, its existence signals a growing recognition at sub-national levels of the urgent need to address the societal implications of advanced AI. This local action, aggregated with similar efforts in other U.S. states and countries, collectively contributes to shaping global norms and best practices for responsible AI development and deployment, particularly in sensitive areas like political communication.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References