Ohio lawmakers are refining their approach to the rapidly evolving threat of AI-generated deception, seeking to balance the need for digital accountability with the protection of everyday internet users. During a recent session of the Ohio House Technology and Innovation Committee, key amendments were introduced to House Bill 185, a piece of Ohio deepfake legislation aimed at curbing the spread of manipulated media.
The proposed changes focus on two critical areas: the legal intent of individuals who share misinformation and the liability of the companies that facilitate digital communication. As artificial intelligence makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic footage and “deepfakes”—images or videos manipulated to misrepresent a person without their consent—legislators are attempting to craft a law that targets bad actors without penalizing the general public.
House Bill 185 is part of a broader movement within state legislatures to address the risks posed by synthetic media, particularly regarding privacy and the potential for political misinformation. The recent amendments, accepted by the committee following testimony from various stakeholders, aim to sharpen the bill’s focus before it moves further through the legislative process.
Targeting Malicious Intent
One of the most significant adjustments involves how the law treats the act of sharing manipulated content. Under the revised language, the bill seeks to distinguish between those who intentionally spread falsehoods and those who may inadvertently share a deepfake because they believe it to be genuine.
Rep. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon), the sponsor of the bill, emphasized that the amendment is designed to prevent the law from unfairly punishing “credulous” users. By focusing on the knowledge of the sharer, the legislation aims to ensure that heavy penalties are reserved for those who act with a clear intent to deceive or spread harm.
“It makes it very targeted,” Mathews said. “We are targeting those that know something is false, take a modified facsimile of it anyway, upload and share it and give it on to spread wherever—while making sure to protect someone who may be credulous and think ‘This might be true’ and share it.”
This distinction is a cornerstone of many modern digital laws, which often struggle to navigate the line between criminal behavior and the accidental spread of misinformation. By incorporating a standard of intent, the committee is attempting to insulate regular citizens from legal repercussions that could arise from simply being misled by sophisticated technology.
Defining the Role of Internet Providers
The second major amendment addresses the legal standing of internet service providers (ISPs) and other digital infrastructure companies. As deepfakes move through social media platforms and messaging apps, questions have arisen regarding whether the companies providing the “pipes” for this data should be held responsible for the content passing through them.
The amendment clarifies that internet providers should be treated similarly to traditional communication technologies, such as television cables and antennas. This classification effectively designates them as conduits rather than content creators.
“Those places are not producing. They are the channels. They are the roads in the way that on the way the communication is going, and so they are similarly treated as those others,” Mathews said.
This perspective aligns with long-standing legal precedents that protect communication intermediaries from being held liable for the specific content transmitted by their users. By codifying this in the context of AI and deepfakes, the committee is aiming to prevent a scenario where the fear of litigation might cause service providers to implement overly restrictive or automated censorship measures that could infringe on legitimate speech.
The Legislative Landscape for AI Regulation
The debate in Ohio mirrors a national conversation regarding how much authority the government should exert over digital platforms and the technologies they host. As generative AI tools become more accessible, the ability to create hyper-realistic, non-consensual imagery has outpaced the development of legal frameworks designed to govern them.
Legislators are currently grappling with several competing interests:
- Privacy Rights: Protecting individuals from the psychological and reputational harm caused by non-consensual deepfakes.
- Freedom of Expression: Ensuring that laws designed to stop misinformation do not inadvertently stifle legitimate satire, parody, or political discourse.
- Technological Infrastructure: Maintaining the open nature of the internet by protecting the providers that make digital communication possible.
While House Bill 185 focuses on the mechanics of sharing and the liability of providers, it remains one of several legislative efforts being considered to manage the implications of artificial intelligence in the public square. The success of such bills often hinges on their ability to be specific enough to catch bad actors while remaining broad enough to avoid unintended consequences for the tech industry and the public.
For those interested in tracking the progress of this and other digital privacy measures, official updates and the full text of the legislation can be found through the Ohio House of Representatives website.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an official interpretation of pending legislation.
House Bill 185 currently remains in the House committee for further consideration. The next steps will involve potential further hearings or a vote to advance the bill to the full House floor.
Do you have thoughts on how the law should handle AI-generated content? We invite you to share your perspective in the comments below or share this story with your network.
