The artificial intelligence (A.I.) race has begun. And with that arms race comes a new development: deepfakes. This type of generative A.I. can create videos, pictures, or audio clips using another person’s likeness. Deepfakes can be created for fun or for research, but some AI tools are now capable of creating sophisticated impersonations that are hard to detect, and many worry about the consequences. Between 2022 and early 2023, the number of deepfake fraud cases around the world increased tenfold—245% in 2023 alone. The repercussions of a successful impersonation can be disastrous; in 2024, a deepfake impersonating staff members tricked a finance worker at the engineering company Arup into paying $25 million to con artists. Given these dangers, legislators at the federal level are attempting to tackle the issue through legislation.
The N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act: Key Provisions
In July 2024, Senator Christopher Coombs (D-DE) introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (N.O. F.A.K.E.S.) Act. The Act, introduced by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), echoed its 2023 House predecessor, the D.E.E.P.F.A.K.E.S. Accountability Act, which aimed to “protect national security” and provide legal assistance to those targeted by deepfakes. The NO FAKES Act was much more narrow than the 2023 bill in scope, and focused on protecting the voice and likeness of people against “unauthorized computer-generated recreations from generative artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.” Some of its key provisions included:
- Property Right Protections: Protects rights of voices and visual likeness of people
- Ownership transfer: Voice and visual likeness rights can go through ownership changes
- Liability: Defines liability as a person engaging in unauthorized usage of someone else’s likeness with actual knowledge
- Penalties: Anyone knowingly using the likeness and/or voice of others without authorization may be brought to civil action with penalties, including as any damages inflicted on the victim plus any profits made through the unorganized use of their likeness
While the 2024 version died in committee at the end of the 118th Congress, Senator Coons re-introduced the bill in April 2025, and it has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Strengths and Proponents
One of the main arguments in favor of the N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act is that the bill provides an avenue to hold people or companies accountable for deepfake fraud, as current intellectual property (IP) laws do not address content generated through AI. This gap in IP law became evident in the case of the viral song “Heart on My Sleeve”, which disrupted the music industry when the public discovered that the song was an AI-generated replica of the voices of Drake and The Weekend. The song was removed from streaming platforms on the basis of copyright violations, but the producers incurred no legal consequences.
Proponents of the N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act say the bill would create a necessary path to accountability given major gaps in the legal landscape. The first gap in IP rights laws, such as copyright laws, is that they are intended to protect original works, not copies of deepfake technology, which often only reference the source material. Second, IP laws may not fully cover non-commercial uses of deepfakes, since most such laws address unauthorized uses of IP for monetary gain. Past legal appeals have also been limited by loose state regulations around A.I., and supporters argue a federal statute could homogenize regulations across the country.
Other proponents of the bill, such as the labor union SAG-AFTRA which represents 160,000 media and entertainment professionals, argue that the N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act will safeguard artistic settings, seeing as actors and celebrities have become central targets for deepfakes. The bill allows artists like members of SAG-AFTRA to control how others employ AI-generated digital copies of them. The NO FAKES Act also expands liabilities for digital companies knowingly hosting deepfakes, which proponents hope will prevent deepfakes like “Heart on My Sleeve” from being hosted on major music platforms.
Criticisms: More Fakes with N.O. F.A.K.E.S.?
The N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act has received criticism for insufficient safeguards and potential unintended consequences. Critics of the bill have noted ambiguity in determining what constitutes “negligible harm” in determining liability penalties, although definitions of harm and penalties were refined in the 2025 version of the bill. Moreover, one interpretation highlights that the bill allows third-parties such as record labels, major movie studios, and talent agents to acquire and control the rights to an entertainer’s performances both in real life and in AI-generated art. They argue this puts more power in the hands of the recording industry, not in the hands of individual artists. In this situation, individual artists would not have to be notified if AI-generated deepfakes of their likeness were created by, for example, their record label. This, in turn, could exacerbate the dangers of misinformation, false advertisements, and deceptive audio recordings, as it would be easier to create them.
Others have cited constitutional concerns regarding congressional power over IP law. The ReCreate Coalition points out that the bill attempts to create an intellectual property right for individual voices and likenesses, which they argue goes beyond congressional authority. They claim that the Commerce Clause and Supreme Court precedent in The Trademark Cases clearly outline permissible congressional involvement in IP law, and the N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act exceeds it.
On the other hand, some critics believe that the Act is unnecessary because deepfakes are already covered by existing statutes. Both the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Computer and Communications Industry Association argued in a coalition letter that digital replicas and deepfakes fall under federal and state laws regulating publicity, false advertising, and privacy. Not only do they believe it is legally redundant, but the coalition echoes the argument that the bill allows parties such as record labels to easily gain licenses to have years-long rights to sound recordings and visual likenesses.
Other critics point to potential repression of first amendment rights. The American Action Forum argues that the bill may incentivize false claims and lawsuits for the immediate removal of platforms, companies, and individuals with some relation to deepfakes. They caution that to some degree, use of AI technology and deepfakes should fall under First Amendment protections. In a press conference to announce the 2025 version of the Act, Senator Coons said the new version of the bill addresses these free speech concerns and adds caps to liability for platforms who might host deepfake content.
Conclusion
The N.O. F.A.K.E.S. Act aims to protect voices and visual likenesses against the unauthorized creation of deepfakes with AI technology. Although it is applauded by some as an important response to the consequences of a continually developing technology, others believe that its vagueness would cause more harm than good. As AI technologies continue to evolve, policy solutions at the federal level are likely to materialize in the future.