Up to $750,000 per work is the top damages figure in the NO FAKES Act of 2026, and as of October 31, 2026, it is still only a proposal (Roll Call, June 18, 2026). The bill has 15 cosponsors and has been on the Senate calendar since June 24, 2026, with no floor vote listed (Congress.gov, S. 4591 actions). States have moved faster: 27 states enacted 55 deepfake laws across 2025 and 2026 (LawSignals Deepfake Laws tracker 2026), and California’s SB 1111 on voice and likeness replicas passed the Assembly 77 to 1 (CalMatters Digital Democracy 2026). We aggregated data from the US Copyright Office, Congress.gov, the FCC, the FTC, state legislature records, EU institutions, and court records as reported by law firms and university databases. This roundup is factual reporting, not legal advice, and it covers likeness rights rather than the data-privacy rules in our biometric privacy law statistics.
TL;DR
- The NO FAKES Act of 2026 is pending, not law, as of October 31, 2026 (Congress.gov, S. 4591 actions).
- 15 senators cosponsor S. 4591: 7 Democrats and 8 Republicans (Roll Call, June 18, 2026).
- Platforms that make no good-faith effort to remove unauthorized deepfakes could face up to $750,000 per work under the bill (Roll Call, June 18, 2026).
- 27 US states offered post-mortem publicity rights in 2024, with terms from 20 years in Virginia to indefinite in Tennessee (US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024).
- 10 states have passed civil laws on AI copies of real people since 2024 (Afterlife.ai state tracker, vendor-run, October 28, 2026).
- 279 deepfake bills were pending in 53 jurisdictions, 19 of them in Congress (LawSignals Deepfake Laws tracker 2026).
- California’s SB 1111 passed 36 to 0 in the Senate and 77 to 1 in the Assembly (CalMatters Digital Democracy 2026).
- The FCC’s $6 million Biden voice robocall fine rested on 3,000 verified calls at $2,000 each (FCC Forfeiture Order 24-104, 2024).
- EU AI Act fines for Article 50 transparency breaches reach 15 million euros or 3% of turnover (EU AI Act, Article 99).
- Denmark’s Bill L 49 would protect voices for 50 years after death, and it is pending (PPC Land, October 2026).
- 84% of US respondents agreed that people should be protected from unauthorized AI replicas of their voice and likeness (Boston University and Ipsos, August 2025).
1. Federal Status: A Committee Win, Not a Statute
Two years after its first introduction, the federal bill has made more progress than ever and still creates no right. S. 4591 has 15 cosponsors and one committee win, and no action is listed after June 24, 2026. The 2025 version never left committee, so the June 2026 markup is a real change, yet a voice vote leaves no recorded tally to show how firm that support is.
The demand side is older than the bill. The US Copyright Office said on July 31, 2024, that there is “an urgent need for effective nationwide protection,” after reviewing more than 10,000 comments in its AI inquiry (US Copyright Office, NewsNet 1048, 2024). About 1,000 of those comments addressed digital replicas, over 90% of them from individuals (US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024). Roll Call also reports that Sen. Blackburn is negotiating with the White House on an AI preemption package that would include the bill, so its route to the floor may run through a larger deal (Roll Call, June 18, 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 version of the bill (S. 1367): cosponsors and last action | 13 cosponsors; referred to committee on April 9, 2025, with no later action | Congress.gov, S. 1367 actions |
| Date the 2026 version (S. 4591) was introduced | May 20, 2026 | nofakesact.org summary, August 2026 |
| Cosponsors of S. 4591 at markup | 15 (7 Democrats, 8 Republicans) | Roll Call, June 18, 2026 |
| Senate Judiciary Committee action on S. 4591 | Advanced on June 18, 2026, by voice vote | Roll Call, June 18, 2026 |
| Latest action on S. 4591 as read on October 31, 2026 (pending) | June 24, 2026: placed on the Senate calendar as Calendar No. 446 | Congress.gov, S. 4591 actions |
| Senators named as raising concerns, mainly on free speech | 4 (Padilla, Cruz, Lee, Schmitt) | Roll Call, June 18, 2026 |
| Signatures on the SAG-AFTRA open letter backing the bill | More than 16,000 | SAG-AFTRA letter, reported by Roll Call, June 18, 2026 |
| House companion bill (H.R. 8915), pending | Introduced May 20, 2026; no House Judiciary markup scheduled as of June 18, 2026 | nofakesact.org summary, August 2026; Digital Music News, June 18, 2026 |
Trade groups split. The National Association of Broadcasters backs the bill (RBR, 2026), while NetChoice opposes it and argues that platforms would have a financial incentive to remove lawful content (Roll Call, June 18, 2026).
2. What the Pending Federal Bill Would Set
The damages schedule is built to reward takedown compliance. An online service that makes a good-faith compliance effort pays $25,000 per work, while one that does not pays $5,000 per instance, up to $750,000 per work (S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026). Liability would therefore scale with how a platform behaves, not only with what a user uploaded.
The sharpest gap between the bill and the Copyright Office is the length of protection after death. The bill allows renewals up to 70 years, a ceiling the Office’s 2024 report did not recommend: it said a post-mortem term “is not necessary” and that, if one is provided, the initial term should be shorter than twenty years. If enacted, the bill would take effect 180 days after enactment, and it gives a civil claimant 3 years from discovery to sue. Every bill figure below is a proposal, not law in force, and the last two rows are the Copyright Office’s own recommendations.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Damages for an online service without a good-faith compliance effort | $5,000 per display, copy, transmission or instance, capped at $750,000 per work | S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026 |
| Damages for an individual defendant vs an online service with a good-faith effort, or an entity that is not an online service | $5,000 per work vs $25,000 per work | S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026 |
| Penalty for a false or deceptive takedown notice or counter-notice | $25,000 | Digital Music News, June 18, 2026 |
| Post-mortem term in the bill | 10 years, then 5-year renewals tied to authorized public use, ending at 70 years after death at most | S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026 |
| Longest license of a digital replica in the bill | 10 years for a living adult; 5 years for a minor under 18, with court approval, ending by age 18 | S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026 |
| Copyright Office view on post-mortem terms | Not necessary; if provided, an initial term shorter than 20 years | US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024 |
| Copyright Office view on license length | A relatively short term, such as 5 or 10 years, except collectively bargained licenses | US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024 |
The false-notice penalty bears directly on the free speech objections in section 1, because it targets abusive takedown requests. The Digital Music News report describes it as part of the current version.
3. The State Map: Count Depends on the Definition
There is no single number for “states with a digital replica law.” Depending on the definition, the 2026 answer is 8, 10, 13 or 27 states, and each is correct for its own question. The narrow counts cover statutes aimed at AI copies, while the widest covers any deepfake law, including sexual images and election content.
The older baseline still matters, because AI-specific laws often amend existing publicity rights. The US Copyright Office’s Digital Replicas Report (2024) is the most recent federal count we could find, and it also warned that “not all states’ laws protect an individual’s voice.” For a performer, the same replica can therefore carry different protection on either side of a state line.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| States with post-mortem publicity rights (most recent federal count) | 27: 19 by statute, 8 by common law | US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024 |
| Range of post-mortem terms across states | 20 years (Virginia), 100 years (Indiana), indefinite (Tennessee) | US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024 |
| States with civil laws on AI copies of real people passed since 2024 | 10 | Afterlife.ai state tracker (vendor-run), October 28, 2026 |
| Further states making deceptive deepfakes a crime | 3 (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) | Afterlife.ai state tracker (vendor-run), October 28, 2026 |
| States that name digital replicas in statute | 8 | Afterlife.ai country tracker (vendor-run), October 28, 2026 |
| States that require or allow heirs to register publicity rights | 7 | Afterlife.ai state tracker (vendor-run), October 28, 2026 |
| Deepfake laws enacted in 2025 and 2026, all topics | 55 laws in 27 states, of which 19 carry a voice or likeness tag (our tally of the tracker’s tags) | LawSignals Deepfake Laws tracker 2026 |
| Deepfake bills still pending | 279 bills in 53 jurisdictions, 19 in Congress; latest action October 23, 2026 | LawSignals Deepfake Laws tracker 2026 |
For scale, state legislators introduced 191 AI-related bills in 2023, 37 of them on deepfakes, and six deepfake bills passed (most recent available data for that comparison: US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024, citing 2023 figures). Election deepfakes are a separate track: Public Citizen’s tracker showed enacted entries in 33 states on October 21, 2026, though one of those laws was struck down and another has sunset.
4. Eight Voice Statutes, Side by Side
The state votes tell a different story from Washington, DC. California’s SB 1111 passed 36 to 0 and 77 to 1, and New York’s S8391 passed the Senate 59 to 0, while the federal bill has yet to reach a floor vote. On these votes, voice and likeness replicas drew little opposition at state level.
The texts differ in ways that matter for audio. Six of the laws below deal with real people’s voices or likenesses, and two regulate synthetic performers who are not real people at all. New York exempts audio-only ads from its synthetic performer rule, while California covers them (Davis+Gilbert, 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Tennessee ELVIS Act (HB 2091), effective July 1, 2024 | Adds voice; 2 private causes of action; treble damages for knowing use; misdemeanor for unauthorized commercial use | Davis Wright Tremaine, 2024 |
| California AB 1836 (Chapter 258, 2024): replicas of dead people | Liability of the greater of $10,000 or actual damages | CalMatters Digital Democracy 2024 |
| California SB 1111 (Chapter 862, signed September 30, 2026): voice and likeness replicas | Senate 36 to 0; Assembly 77 to 1; takes effect January 1, 2027 | CalMatters Digital Democracy 2026; Radio News Now, October 2026 |
| California SB 1050 (signed September 16, 2026): synthetic performers in ads | Disclosure required; audio-only ads covered; takes effect January 1, 2027 | Davis+Gilbert, 2026 |
| New York S8391 (Chapter 616, signed December 11, 2025): dead performers | Senate 59 to 0; consent replaces the old disclaimer option; damages of the greater of $2,000 or compensatory damages | New York State Senate, S8391 |
| New York S8420-A (Chapter 617, signed December 11, 2025): synthetic performers in ads | $1,000 for a first violation, $5,000 for later ones; takes effect 180 days after becoming law | New York State Senate, S8420-A |
| Washington SSB 5886 (Chapter 69, 2026): personality rights, effective June 11, 2026 | Senate 47 to 0; House 85 to 9 | Washington State Legislature, SB 5886 |
| Montana HB 513 (Chapter 685, 2025): voice and visual likeness | Rights last 20 years after death; 4 years to file a claim after discovery | Montana Code 30-14-1714 |
Washington’s underlying statute now gives a $3,000 civil penalty plus actual damages, adds noneconomic damages for a forged digital likeness, and runs 10 years after death for individuals and 75 years for personalities (RCW 63.60).
5. Courts and Regulators: Older Tools Doing New Work
Without a federal right, enforcement has borrowed from statutes written for other problems. The FCC’s $6 million fine over the fake Biden robocall was built on the Truth in Caller ID Act: 3,000 verified calls at $2,000 each (FCC Forfeiture Order 24-104, 2024). The penalty attached to a spoofed phone number, not to the cloned voice as such.
The court record points the same way. In Lehrman v. Lovo, federal claims based on the clones failed, while New York publicity and consumer claims went ahead: in this ruling, copyright reached recordings, not the voice itself. Disputes over recordings are a separate fight, covered in our AI music copyright claims statistics. The Cash case tests a different edge, because the estate does not allege AI at all. The ad’s voice is a human tribute singer, so the ruling could show how far the ELVIS Act reaches beyond cloning (American Songwriter, May 14, 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Lehrman v. Lovo (New York federal court, July 10, 2025): outcome of 16 pleaded claims | Contract, publicity, consumer protection and one recording-based copyright claim survived; Lanham Act and clone-output copyright claims dismissed | Skadden, July 2025; Loeb, July 2025 |
| Johnny Cash trust v. Coca-Cola (Nashville federal court), pending as of May 14, 2026 | Filed November 2025; answer filed May 8, 2026; no AI alleged; damages likely above $75,000 sought | American Songwriter, May 14, 2026 |
| Beijing Internet Court AI voice ruling, April 2024 | 250,000 yuan (about $34,500); 2 of 5 defendants held liable | Beijing Internet Court, 2024 |
| Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (Bombay High Court, July 26, 2024) | Ad-interim injunction against voice cloning; 38 numbered defendants | Columbia Global Freedom of Expression |
| Calls in the fake Biden robocall campaign | 9,581 calls, 3,000 verified | FCC Forfeiture Order 24-104, 2024 |
| FCC ruling that AI voices count as artificial under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act | February 8, 2024; 26 state attorneys general wrote in support | FCC press release, 2024 |
| FTC letters when TAKE IT DOWN enforcement began (May 2026) | 12 warning letters to nudify tools; 15 reminder letters to major platforms | FTC, May 20, 2026 |
| TAKE IT DOWN Act platform duty and maximum civil penalty | Removal within 48 hours; up to $53,088 per violation | FTC, May 20, 2026 |
The TAKE IT DOWN Act is included for contrast. It is a federal deepfake statute in force, but its digital forgery definition covers intimate visual depictions and does not mention audio (Public Law 119-12, 2025).
6. International: Labels in the EU, Consent in Denmark
Europe is testing two models at once. The EU AI Act requires disclosure, not consent: it says a deepfake must be labeled, not that the person imitated must agree. Denmark’s Bill L 49 goes further, requiring consent and placing the burden of proving it on the publisher, for 50 years after death. Accidental publication is covered too, so the Danish text would put responsibility on whoever makes the imitation public (PPC Land, October 2026).
The idea has political reach. A European Parliamentary Research Service note dated January 14, 2026, records a declaration signed by ministers from all Member States except Hungary, plus five other European countries, stating that citizens must be protected against digital replicas of their personal characteristics without consent (EPRS, 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act Article 50 deepfake disclosure duty applies from | August 2, 2026 | EU AI Act, Article 50 |
| Maximum fine for Article 50 transparency breaches | 15 million euros or 3% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher; lower figure for small and medium companies | EU AI Act, Article 99 |
| Effect of the Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force July 27, 2026) on Article 50 | Date unchanged; machine-readable marking grace period to December 2, 2026, for systems already on the market | Baker Botts, September 2026 |
| Organizations that signed the voluntary EU Code of Practice on AI-generated content transparency | About 190 by the end of July 2026 | European Commission, updated October 19, 2026 |
| Denmark Bill L 49, pending | Tabled October 8, 2026; proposed start January 1, 2027; more than 100 bodies consulted on the 2025 draft | PPC Land, October 2026 |
| Denmark Bill L 49: length of protection and enforcement | 50 years after death; civil only, with no fines or criminal offence | PPC Land, October 2026 |
| India removal deadlines under the IT Rules amendments (in force February 20, 2026) | 3 hours after a court or government order (previously 36); 2 hours for high-risk categories including impersonation (previously 24) | Freshfields, 2026 |
| China draft rules on digital virtual humans (issued April 3, 2026, not final) | Consent needed for a digital human that identifies a person, including by voice; fines of 10,000 to 200,000 yuan | Cyberspace Administration of China, 2026 |
Elsewhere the status varies. Spain’s draft organic law treats unauthorized AI recreation of a voice as unlawful interference, and it remained a draft at last report on January 28, 2026 (ECIJA, 2026). The UK government’s March 18, 2026, report says it will consider “whether it would be beneficial to introduce a new digital replica or personality right,” with no timetable, according to Resultsense’s August 2026 summary of Macfarlanes’ analysis. The European Parliament adopted its report on copyright and generative AI on March 10, 2026 (European Parliament Legislative Observatory), and Italy’s AI law, Law 132/2025, has been in force since October 10, 2025 (Gazzetta Ufficiale, 2025).
7. Contracts and Public Opinion: Consent Before Statute
Private contracts reached this subject before most statutes did, and California then wrote a legal floor beneath them. Under AB 2602, a contract term allowing a digital replica to stand in for in-person work can be unenforceable if it lacks a reasonably specific description of the use and the performer had neither a lawyer nor a union. The legal point of the union votes below is narrower than their headlines: a collective agreement that expressly addresses digital replicas is one of the ways to satisfy that California rule. Our voice actor AI contracts statistics cover the workforce side.
Public opinion is lopsided: 84% of US respondents agreed that people should be protected from unauthorized AI replicas of their voice and likeness, in a Boston University and Ipsos survey fielded August 22 to 25, 2025. The harder political question is who writes the rules, and national voters lean toward having both levels of government do it (Deseret News, October 26, 2026). That matters for any preemption package. Consent also runs through the rules that apply to people using voice cloning software: the statutes above generally address the use of another person’s voice without permission, although Tennessee and Montana also reach tools built mainly to produce unauthorized replicas.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| California AB 2602 (Chapter 259, 2024) final Assembly vote | 73 to 0 on August 28, 2024 | CalMatters Digital Democracy 2024 |
| New performances covered by AB 2602 | Those fixed on or after January 1, 2025 | CalMatters Digital Democracy 2024 |
| SAG-AFTRA 2023 TV/Theatrical contract, ratified December 2023 | 78.33% in favor; turnout about 38.15% | TheWrap, December 5, 2023 |
| SAG-AFTRA 2026 TV/Theatrical contract, which adds limits on synthetics | 91.42% in favor, 8.58% against; 19.25% return of ballots | SAG-AFTRA release, via WNY Labor Today, June 9, 2026 |
| Agree that people should be protected from unauthorized AI replicas of voice and likeness | 84% | Boston University and Ipsos, August 2025 |
| Same statement, by party | 84% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats | Boston University and Ipsos, August 2025 |
| Agree that platforms should remove unauthorized deepfakes the way they remove copyrighted music | 81% | Boston University and Ipsos, August 2025 |
| Registered US voters who favor both federal and state governments regulating AI | 55% (14% federal only, 8% state only, 6% no regulation); n = 2,050, margin of error 2 points | Morning Consult for Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute, October 13 to 19, 2026 |
Summary: Voice Likeness Rights and Digital Replica Law by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| NO FAKES Act of 2026 (S. 4591) status on October 31, 2026 | Pending; Calendar No. 446 since June 24, 2026 | Congress.gov, S. 4591 actions |
| Cosponsors of S. 4591 | 15 (7 Democrats, 8 Republicans) | Roll Call, June 18, 2026 |
| Proposed damages cap for online services without a good-faith effort | $750,000 per work | S. 4591 reported text, June 24, 2026 |
| Comments reviewed in the US Copyright Office AI inquiry | More than 10,000 | US Copyright Office, NewsNet 1048, 2024 |
| States with post-mortem publicity rights | 27 | US Copyright Office, Digital Replicas Report 2024 |
| States with civil laws on AI copies since 2024 | 10 | Afterlife.ai state tracker (vendor-run), October 28, 2026 |
| Deepfake laws enacted in 2025 and 2026 | 55 in 27 states | LawSignals Deepfake Laws tracker 2026 |
| California SB 1111 floor votes | 36 to 0 and 77 to 1 | CalMatters Digital Democracy 2026 |
| New York S8391 Senate vote | 59 to 0 | New York State Senate |
| Washington SSB 5886 floor votes | 47 to 0 and 85 to 9 | Washington State Legislature |
| Claims pleaded in Lehrman v. Lovo | 16 | Skadden, July 2025 |
| Beijing Internet Court AI voice award | 250,000 yuan | Beijing Internet Court, 2024 |
| FCC fine over the fake Biden robocall | $6 million | FCC Forfeiture Order 24-104, 2024 |
| FTC maximum civil penalty under TAKE IT DOWN | $53,088 per violation | FTC, May 20, 2026 |
| EU AI Act Article 50 maximum fine | 15 million euros or 3% of turnover | EU AI Act, Article 99 |
| Denmark Bill L 49 protection after death (pending) | 50 years | PPC Land, October 2026 |
| Agree people need protection from unauthorized AI replicas | 84% | Boston University and Ipsos, August 2025 |
| Voters who favor both federal and state AI regulation | 55% | Morning Consult for Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute, October 2026 |
Methodology and Sources
We read each source below during this research and traced legal status to official records where we could reach them. Status statements are dated because this subject changes quickly. Nothing here is legal advice.
- US Congress: S. 4591 actions, S. 1367 actions, S. 4591 reported text, Public Law 119-12
- US Copyright Office: Digital Replicas Report, Part 1, 2024, NewsNet 1048, 2024
- Federal agencies: FCC Forfeiture Order 24-104, FCC press release on AI voices, FTC on TAKE IT DOWN, May 20, 2026
- Reporting on the federal bill: Roll Call, June 18, 2026, Digital Music News, June 18, 2026, RBR, 2026, nofakesact.org
- State records: CalMatters Digital Democracy: SB 1111, AB 1836, AB 2602; New York S8391, New York S8420-A; Washington SB 5886, RCW 63.60; Montana Code 30-14-1714
- Law firm and press analysis of statutes and cases: Davis Wright Tremaine on the ELVIS Act, Davis+Gilbert on SB 1050, Radio News Now on SB 1111, Skadden and Loeb on Lehrman v. Lovo, American Songwriter on the Cash case
- Trackers: LawSignals Deepfake Laws, Afterlife.ai state tracker, Afterlife.ai country tracker, Public Citizen election deepfake tracker
- International: EU AI Act Article 50 and Article 99, Baker Botts, European Commission Code of Practice page, EPRS note on Denmark, EU IP Helpdesk on Denmark, PPC Land on Bill L 49, European Parliament Legislative Observatory, UK copyright and AI consultation, Resultsense on the UK position, Freshfields on India, Cyberspace Administration of China draft, ECIJA on Spain, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Law 132/2025
- Courts: Beijing Internet Court, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Singh v. Codible Ventures
- Contracts and polling: TheWrap on the 2023 vote, SAG-AFTRA release via WNY Labor Today, Boston University and Ipsos, Deseret News and Morning Consult
- Data watch: (1) State counts conflict by definition, and both main trackers carry caveats: Afterlife.ai is run by a company selling AI persona services, and its two pages give 10 civil-law states and 8 states naming digital replicas; LawSignals says its summaries were drafted by software and not reviewed by an attorney, and the 19 voice or likeness laws are our tally of its tags (three laws in its list carry two tags, so the tags sum to 58, not 55). (2) The Copyright Office listed 3 registration states in 2024 (California, Oklahoma, Texas), while Afterlife.ai lists 7 in 2026; the wider definition likely explains part of the gap. (3) NO FAKES calendar dates differ: Congress.gov gives June 24, 2026, while nofakesact.org gives July 2, 2026; we use Congress.gov. Coverage calls the markup unanimous, while Roll Call and nofakesact.org describe a voice vote, so no recorded tally exists. (4) We read the reported print of S. 4591 as plain text, which does not separate struck language from the substitute; the damages figures appear in both parts, and they could change before any floor vote. (5) Public Citizen’s 33 is our reading of a tracker table showing two caveated entries; Afterlife.ai cites 31 states for July 2026. (6) Boston University reports 84% agreement, while its 30% and 53% components sum to 83%; the sample size is not published, and it reports a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.5 points. (7) The 92% consumer concern figure used by bill supporters is left out because we could not identify the pollster or question wording. (8) Denmark’s start date has slipped: EPRS and the EU IP Helpdesk expected July 2026, and the current bill proposes January 1, 2027. We could not reach the Danish parliament’s site, so L 49’s status rests on reporting through mid-October 2026. (9) California’s AB 2602 page mixes several bill versions; we relied on the August 23, 2024, Senate amendments. (10) Machine-readable marking dates under the Digital Omnibus should be checked against the regulation itself. (11) Some reported facts are excluded or left general because no primary text was readable: a September 30, 2026, Tokyo court ruling on voice publicity rights, South Korean fine levels, and the Italian deepfake offence penalty, which Afterlife.ai puts at 1 to 5 years. (12) The 2023 bill counts are close to three years old and are flagged as most recent available data for that comparison.
Last updated: October 31, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the US Senate takes up S. 4591 or the Danish parliament votes on Bill L 49.