United States - South Carolina - Deepfake Media Regulation (HB 3517)

Overview

South Carolina House Bill 3517, introduced for the 2025-2026 legislative session, addresses the growing concern of artificial intelligence-generated deceptive media in political campaigns. The bill seeks to amend the South Carolina Code of Laws by adding Section 7-25-230, establishing a prohibition on the distribution of 'deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media' of a candidate within a critical 90-day period before an election. This prohibition is contingent upon the absence of a clearly articulated disclosure that the media has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. The legislation is designed to empower candidates whose likeness, appearance, or speech is depicted in such deepfakes by granting them the right to seek injunctive relief, preventing further dissemination, and to pursue actions for general or special damages against those responsible for distributing the deceptive content. Furthermore, the bill outlines a tiered penalty structure for violations, ranging from misdemeanors for first offenses to felonies for subsequent infractions. This legislative effort underscores a broader movement among states to regulate the use of AI in political communications to ensure transparency and prevent voter manipulation. It is important to note that while the user's prompt initially referenced 'South Carolina HB 3650 AI Campaign Disclosure', the actual HB 3650 for the 2025-2026 session pertains to firearms offenses. House Bill 3517 is the correct bill addressing deepfake media in elections for the current legislative session (Source: South Carolina Legislature Online, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billtext.php?bill=3517&session=126&version=Introduced; LegiScan, https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3517/2025).

Definitions

The bill introduces and relies on specific definitions to delineate the scope of its prohibitions and requirements. While the full definitional section for HB 3517 is not exhaustively detailed in all snippets, the core concepts are clear from its stated purpose and similar legislation (HB 4660 from the previous session, which shares identical language in its summary and provisions, can be used for indicative definitions). Key terms include:

• Deceptive and fraudulent deepfake: This refers to 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. The deceptive nature is central to the prohibition, aiming to prevent misleading content. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Synthetic media: Defined as an image, audio, or video recording of an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been technologically altered or generated by artificial intelligence. This broad definition encompasses various forms of AI-manipulated content. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Disclosure Language: The required disclosure states: "This _______ (image, video, or audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." The blank is to be filled with the appropriate media type. (South Carolina Legislature Online)

The bill's application focuses on entities that "know or should have known" the synthetic media is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake, indicating a standard of knowledge or reasonable diligence. (South Carolina Legislature Online)

Governance and Institutional Framework

The proposed Section 7-25-230 would be integrated into Chapter 25, Title 7 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, which pertains to elections. This placement signifies that the regulation of deepfakes in elections falls under the existing legal framework governing electoral processes and campaign conduct within the state. The bill targets a broad range of entities that might engage in the distribution of deepfakes, including any "person, corporation, committee, or other entity." This comprehensive scope ensures that various actors involved in political campaigns, from individuals to organized groups, are subject to the law's provisions. While the bill does not explicitly name a specific new agency for oversight, enforcement and judicial remedies would likely be handled by existing legal and judicial mechanisms. Candidates themselves are granted the standing to initiate legal action, indicating a decentralized enforcement pathway through civil litigation. Criminal penalties would be pursued through the state's prosecutorial system. (Source: South Carolina Legislature Online, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billtext.php?bill=3517&session=126&version=Introduced; FastDemocracy, https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/sc/2025-2026/bills/SCB00021870/)

Key Focus Areas

• Prohibition on Undisclosed Deceptive Deepfakes: The central tenet of HB 3517 is the prohibition against distributing synthetic media that constitutes a "deceptive and fraudulent deepfake" of a candidate within ninety days of an election. This critical window before an election is identified as a period when such misinformation could have the most significant and irreparable impact on voters and election outcomes. The prohibition applies if the distributing entity "knows or should have known" the media is a deceptive deepfake, establishing a standard of knowledge. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Mandatory Disclosure for AI-Generated Content: The prohibition is lifted if the synthetic media includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure. This disclosure must explicitly state: "This _______ (image, video, or audio) has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence." This requirement aims to ensure transparency and allow voters to distinguish between authentic and AI-altered content. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Specific Disclosure Formatting for Audio and Visual Media: The bill mandates specific formatting for the disclosure to ensure its effectiveness. For visual or video media, the disclosure must be clearly visible. For audio-only media, the disclosure must be read in a clearly spoken manner, at a pitch easily heard by the average listener. It must be present at the beginning and end of the audio, and if the audio exceeds two minutes, it must be interspersed at intervals not greater than two minutes each. This detailed requirement aims to prevent subtle or easily missed disclosures. (LegiScan)
• Legal Remedies for Affected Candidates: A significant provision of the bill grants candidates whose appearance, action, or speech is depicted through a deceptive deepfake in violation of the law the right to seek legal recourse. This includes the ability to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief to prohibit the publication or continued distribution of such deepfakes. Additionally, affected candidates can bring an action for general or special damages against the distributor. The court is also authorized to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing person in such actions, providing a strong incentive for compliance and a robust mechanism for redress. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Exceptions: The prohibition does not apply to broadcasting stations, internet platforms, or publications that provide clear disclosures regarding the authenticity of the media. This recognizes the role of media outlets in reporting on political content while still emphasizing transparency. (FastDemocracy)

Implementation Framework

House Bill 3517 proposes to amend the existing South Carolina Code of Laws, specifically within Title 7, Chapter 25, which governs elections. This approach means that the new regulations concerning deepfake media will be integrated directly into the state's established electoral legal framework. The bill explicitly states that it "takes effect upon approval by the Governor." As the bill is currently in the committee stage, it is not yet in force. Upon enactment, the provisions would immediately become law, applicable to future elections. The establishment of specific dates, such as the 90-day window before an election, provides a clear timeline for when the prohibitions and disclosure requirements are active. No specific timelines for phased implementation or additional regulatory development by state agencies are outlined within the current text, suggesting a direct application upon becoming law. (South Carolina Legislature Online)

Monitoring and Evaluation

The bill does not explicitly establish a new agency or specific mechanisms dedicated solely to monitoring and evaluating compliance with its provisions. However, given its integration into the election laws, it can be inferred that existing state bodies responsible for election oversight and campaign finance, such as the South Carolina State Ethics Commission and the South Carolina Election Commission, may play a role in receiving complaints or conducting investigations related to violations. The provision allowing candidates to seek injunctive relief and damages directly indicates a significant component of enforcement through private civil action. This mechanism provides a direct avenue for affected parties to monitor and challenge non-compliant deepfake distributions. The criminal penalties also imply that law enforcement agencies and the state's judicial system would be responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal violations. Regular reporting by these bodies, if applicable to deepfake violations, would contribute to an indirect form of evaluation. (Source: South Carolina State Ethics Commission, https://ethics.sc.gov/campaigns; South Carolina Election Commission, https://www.scvotes.gov/campaign-finance-ethics)

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

South Carolina HB 3517 establishes clear penalties for the unlawful distribution of deceptive and fraudulent deepfake media, along with provisions for civil liability and potential avenues for appeal:

• Criminal Penalties (First Offense): A person found in violation of the prohibition on distributing deceptive deepfakes for a first offense is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the offender may face imprisonment for not more than ninety days, a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Criminal Penalties (Second Offense): For a second offense occurring within five years of a previous conviction for the same violation, the offender is guilty of a felony. Upon conviction, the penalties are significantly increased, including imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both. This tiered penalty structure reflects the legislature's intent to deter repeat offenses and address the serious nature of sustained deepfake dissemination. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Civil Liability and Damages: Beyond criminal charges, the bill creates a clear pathway for civil action. A candidate whose appearance, action, or speech is depicted through a deceptive deepfake in violation of the law is authorized to bring an action for general or special damages against the distributor of the media. This allows candidates to recover financial losses or harm to their reputation resulting from the deepfake. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Injunctive and Equitable Relief: To prevent ongoing harm, candidates are also entitled to seek injunctive or other equitable relief. This means a court can issue orders prohibiting the publication or further distribution of the deceptive deepfake, offering a crucial tool for immediate cessation of harm. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing person in a civil action brought under this section. This provision helps to ensure that candidates have the financial means to pursue legal remedies and that frivolous lawsuits are discouraged, while legitimate claims are supported. (South Carolina Legislature Online)
• Appeals Process: While the bill text does not detail a specific appeals process, any convictions or civil judgments would be subject to the standard appeals procedures within the South Carolina judicial system, allowing for review by higher courts.

Relationship to Other Instruments

South Carolina HB 3517 is designed to amend the existing South Carolina Code of Laws by adding a new section, 7-25-230, within Chapter 25, Title 7. This integration means the bill will become an integral part of the state's election law framework. It supplements existing regulations related to campaign conduct, fair elections, and prohibitions against deceptive practices in political communication. The bill operates within the broader context of state laws governing free speech, but explicitly carves out an exception for intentionally deceptive deepfakes in the electoral context, particularly within the sensitive 90-day period before an election. It aligns with the state's general interest in maintaining electoral integrity and preventing voter manipulation. The penalties and remedies provided are consistent with other state criminal and civil statutes. It does not appear to conflict with federal election laws, as states generally have the authority to regulate aspects of their own electoral processes, especially concerning specific types of campaign materials and disclosures. The bill is part of a growing trend among states to address the challenges posed by AI in elections, often mirroring similar legislative efforts seen in other jurisdictions. (South Carolina Legislature Online)

International Alignment

The bill does not explicitly address international alignment or compliance with international standards. As a state-level legislative initiative in the United States, its primary focus is on regulating electoral conduct within South Carolina's jurisdiction. However, the concerns addressed by HB 3517—the potential for AI-generated deepfakes to mislead voters and undermine democratic processes—are global in nature. Many democracies worldwide are grappling with similar issues, and international bodies and national governments are exploring various regulatory approaches to AI in elections and disinformation. While HB 3517 is a domestic response, its core principles of transparency and accountability for AI-generated political content resonate with broader international discussions and emerging best practices in digital media regulation and electoral integrity. It contributes to a fragmented but growing body of law addressing AI's impact on democratic processes across different jurisdictions. (Source: Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/AI_deepfake_policy_in_South_Carolina; Public Citizen, https://www.citizen.org/article/tracker-state-legislation-on-deepfakes-in-elections/)

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References