United States - North Dakota - AI Disclosure in Politics (HB 1167)

Overview

North Dakota House Bill 1167 (HB 1167), enacted during the 2025 legislative session, represents a significant step by the state to address the burgeoning challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in political discourse and campaigning. The legislation specifically creates and enacts a new section within Chapter 16.1-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, focusing on the mandatory application of artificial intelligence disclosure statements for certain political communications. This move underscores a broader legislative intent to foster greater transparency and accountability in an era where AI-generated content, often referred to as 'deepfakes,' can easily mislead the public and potentially influence electoral outcomes. By requiring clear disclaimers, HB 1167 aims to empower voters with the knowledge that the political content they consume may have been digitally altered or created by AI, thereby enabling more informed decision-making.

The passage of HB 1167 is part of a comprehensive effort by North Dakota lawmakers to draw a line against disinformation and ensure truth in elections, even as technology evolves rapidly. Governor Kelly Armstrong signed this bill into law on April 11, 2025, following its passage with strong bipartisan support in both legislative chambers. The law is designed to bring clarity to modern campaigning by requiring "bold disclaimers" on political content generated with AI. This initiative aligns with national trends where states are increasingly enacting laws related to deepfakes, particularly those used in political communications. The core objective is to prevent the intentional deception of the public through manipulated media, ensuring that the source and nature of political messaging are transparent to the electorate.

Definitions

For the purposes of understanding North Dakota HB 1167 and related deepfake legislation, several key terms are essential. A "deepfake video or image" generally refers to any video or audio recording, motion picture film, electronic image, or photograph that has been digitally altered or entirely created by artificial intelligence (AI) with the explicit intent to deceive. Such content typically depicts an individual's image or voice in a manner that did not occur in reality, where their appearance or sound in the media is a direct result of digitization or AI manipulation. This broad definition captures the essence of the deceptive media that the legislation seeks to regulate, ensuring that the scope of the law covers various forms of AI-generated misinformation.

"Artificial Intelligence (AI)" within this legislative context can be understood as computer systems that are modeled, albeit loosely, on the human brain's ability to recognize patterns in data. These systems possess the capability to generate, synthesize, or manipulate content, including videos, images, or audio files, to create realistic portrayals of events or individuals that never actually happened. HB 1167 specifically targets the use of such AI technology in the creation of "political communications." A "disclosure statement" is the central mechanism mandated by HB 1167; it is a clear, conspicuous, and unambiguous statement required to be affixed to any political communication that has been generated or substantially altered using AI. The primary function of this statement is to inform the audience that the content they are viewing or hearing is not entirely authentic and has been manipulated by artificial intelligence, thereby upholding the principle of transparency. "Political communication" itself encompasses any message, advertisement, or content disseminated with the aim of influencing the outcome of an election, promoting or opposing a candidate, or advocating for a particular political issue. HB 1167's provisions are specifically tailored to ensure that AI-generated content within this critical domain is clearly identified, preventing the spread of misinformation during electoral processes.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The governance and institutional framework for North Dakota HB 1167 is primarily rooted in the state's legislative and executive branches. The bill was introduced and passed by the North Dakota Legislative Assembly, comprising both the House of Representatives and the Senate, demonstrating the state's commitment to addressing the implications of AI in public discourse. Following its successful passage through both chambers, Governor Kelly Armstrong provided executive assent by signing the bill into law. This process firmly establishes HB 1167 as a statutory requirement within the North Dakota Century Code, specifically creating a new section within Chapter 16.1-10, which pertains to elections and political practices.

While HB 1167 itself mandates disclosure statements, the enforcement and oversight responsibilities for ensuring compliance with these new requirements would typically fall under existing state agencies responsible for election laws and campaign finance regulations. These agencies, such as the North Dakota Secretary of State's office or the Attorney General's office, would be tasked with interpreting the specifics of the "bold disclaimers" required and investigating any alleged violations. The legislative intent behind HB 1167, as part of a broader package of laws signed by the Governor, emphasizes bringing "accountability" to modern campaigning, suggesting that non-compliance with the disclosure requirements could lead to legal repercussions. The framework relies on the established legal and administrative structures of the state to ensure that the provisions of the Act are effectively implemented and enforced, thereby maintaining the integrity of North Dakota's electoral processes against the backdrop of evolving technological capabilities.

Key Focus Areas

The primary focus of North Dakota HB 1167 is the imperative for transparency in political communications that utilize artificial intelligence. Specifically, the legislation targets the creation and dissemination of political content, including advertisements and other messages, that have been generated or substantially altered by AI. The core requirement is the inclusion of "artificial intelligence disclosure statements," which must be clear and conspicuous, informing the audience that the media they are consuming is not entirely authentic. This focus is a direct response to the growing concern over deepfakes and other forms of AI-generated disinformation that have the potential to mislead voters and undermine public trust in democratic processes. The bill aims to ensure that the origin and nature of political messaging are transparent, allowing citizens to critically evaluate the information presented to them during election cycles.

Beyond mere disclosure, HB 1167 is implicitly designed to combat the spread of knowingly false political advertisements, particularly those enhanced or created using AI. Governor Armstrong's signing of this bill, alongside another that "cracks down on knowingly false political ads," highlights a concerted effort to extend accountability to new forms of media, including text messages and social media. This comprehensive approach recognizes that the digital landscape offers new avenues for deceptive practices and seeks to establish legal safeguards against them. By mandating disclosure, the legislation places the onus on creators and distributors of AI-generated political content to be forthright about its synthetic nature. This focus on transparency and accountability in political campaigning is crucial for preserving the integrity of elections and ensuring that public discourse remains grounded in verifiable information, even as AI technologies become more sophisticated and accessible.

Implementation Framework

The implementation framework for North Dakota HB 1167 is designed to integrate the requirement for AI disclosure statements into existing practices for political communications. As the bill creates a new section within Chapter 16.1-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, it establishes a legal mandate for anyone engaged in political campaigning to adhere to these new transparency standards when using AI-generated content. The specific details regarding the format and prominence of the "bold disclaimers" required by the law would likely be further clarified through administrative rules or guidelines issued by the relevant state agencies, such as the Secretary of State's office, which oversees elections. These guidelines would aim to provide practical instructions to political campaigns, parties, and other entities on how to effectively implement the disclosure requirements across various media platforms, including digital, print, and broadcast.

The framework anticipates that compliance will be achieved through self-regulation by political actors, coupled with potential oversight and enforcement mechanisms. The law's effectiveness will depend on clear communication of its provisions to all stakeholders involved in political advertising and messaging. Educational outreach may be necessary to inform campaigns, media outlets, and the public about what constitutes AI-generated or substantially altered content requiring disclosure, and what the acceptable forms of disclosure are. The intent is to make the disclosure requirement a standard practice, similar to existing regulations for campaign finance or truth in advertising. By establishing a clear legal basis for transparency in AI-generated political content, North Dakota aims to create an environment where the public is better equipped to identify and critically assess information, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process from potential manipulation.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of North Dakota HB 1167's effectiveness will be an ongoing process, primarily conducted by state agencies responsible for election oversight and enforcement of campaign laws. The North Dakota Secretary of State's office, in its role of administering elections and campaign finance, will likely be at the forefront of monitoring compliance with the new AI disclosure statement requirements. This would involve reviewing political advertisements and communications, both proactively and in response to public complaints, to ensure that AI-generated content is appropriately labeled. The evaluation would assess whether the "bold disclaimers" mandated by the law are indeed clear and conspicuous enough to inform the public, and if the presence of such disclosures is having the intended effect of increasing transparency in political discourse.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of HB 1167 could be evaluated through various metrics, including the number of reported violations, the outcomes of enforcement actions, and public surveys assessing awareness and understanding of AI-generated political content. The legislative intent to bring "accountability" to modern campaigning suggests that the state will be keen to observe if the law deters the deceptive use of deepfakes and promotes more honest communication. Periodic reviews by the North Dakota Legislative Assembly might also be undertaken to assess the law's impact, identify any unforeseen challenges or loopholes, and determine if amendments are necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technologies. Such evaluations would be crucial to ensure that the regulation remains relevant and effective in achieving its core objective of protecting the integrity of elections from AI-driven disinformation.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

While North Dakota HB 1167 specifically focuses on mandating "artificial intelligence disclosure statements" for political communications, the broader legislative context in which it was passed indicates that penalties and liability mechanisms are in place for non-compliance or deceptive practices. Governor Kelly Armstrong, in signing HB 1167, also enacted another law that "cracks down on knowingly false political ads, extending penalties to text messages and social media." This suggests that a failure to include the required AI disclosure statement, or the intentional use of AI-generated content to deceive without proper labeling, could fall under existing or newly established penalties related to false political advertising. The aim is to ensure accountability in campaigning, implying that violations would not go unaddressed.

The specific nature of penalties for violating HB 1167's disclosure requirements would likely align with those typically associated with infractions of North Dakota's election and campaign finance laws. These could range from civil penalties, such as fines, to more severe consequences depending on the intent and impact of the violation. For instance, if the undisclosed AI-generated content is deemed to be a "knowingly false political ad" intended to mislead voters, the penalties could be substantial. The process for appeals would follow standard administrative and judicial procedures within North Dakota's legal system, allowing individuals or entities to challenge findings of non-compliance or the imposition of penalties. This framework ensures that while the law aims to deter deceptive practices, it also provides due process for those accused of violations, balancing enforcement with legal safeguards.

Relationship to Other Instruments

North Dakota HB 1167 operates within a broader legislative landscape concerning deepfakes and digital content, both at the state and potentially federal levels. During the same 2025 legislative session, North Dakota enacted other significant laws addressing deepfake technology. Notably, House Bill 1351 made it a misdemeanor to create, possess, or distribute sexually expressive images, including deepfakes, without consent, and provided avenues for civil lawsuits for victims. Additionally, Senate Bill 2380 and House Bill 1561 introduced age verification requirements for pornography sites and also addressed the non-consensual distribution of deepfake pornographic material. These complementary laws collectively demonstrate a comprehensive approach by North Dakota to regulate various facets of deepfake technology, from political disinformation to non-consensual intimate imagery.

While HB 1167 specifically targets transparency in political communications through AI disclosure statements, it forms part of a cohesive strategy to mitigate the harms associated with manipulated media. Unlike HB 1320, which proposed a general prohibition on deepfake videos and images without consent but ultimately failed to pass, HB 1167 focuses on a specific regulatory mechanism—disclosure—within the political sphere. This distinction highlights a legislative preference for transparency and accountability in political messaging rather than an outright ban, which might raise First Amendment concerns. Furthermore, North Dakota's legislative actions align with a national trend, as many other U.S. states have also enacted laws related to deepfakes, particularly those used in political communications or depicting explicit sexual acts. This indicates a growing consensus across jurisdictions regarding the necessity of regulating AI-generated content to protect individuals and democratic processes.

International Alignment

As a state-level legislative instrument, North Dakota HB 1167 primarily addresses domestic concerns within the United States, specifically pertaining to political communications within the state's jurisdiction. Therefore, its direct alignment with international treaties or regulations is limited. However, the underlying principles of transparency, accountability, and combating disinformation in political processes resonate with broader global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and mitigate the risks associated with deepfake technology. Many countries and international bodies are actively developing frameworks and policies to address the societal implications of AI, including its potential misuse in generating deceptive content.

While HB 1167 does not explicitly reference international standards, its existence reflects a shared global concern about the impact of AI on democratic integrity. Jurisdictions worldwide are grappling with how to balance technological innovation with the need to protect citizens from manipulation and fraud. The requirement for disclosure statements in political advertising, for instance, aligns with general principles of fair campaigning and media ethics that are recognized internationally. Although the specific mechanisms and legal frameworks may differ, the objective of ensuring that the public is aware when content has been artificially generated or altered is a common thread in global discussions around responsible AI governance. Thus, while not directly bound by international instruments, North Dakota's HB 1167 contributes to the growing body of global legislative responses to the challenges posed by advanced AI capabilities.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References