Tech group pushes back on AI identity fraud restrictions
Ohio Senators saw the first pushback on a proposal establishing new rules restricting the use of artificial intelligence to create pornography, particularly images depicting minors. An organization made up of tech company leaders argue the bill’s intent is good, but they worry it could hamper their business.
The proposal and the opponent
Senate Bill 163 updates state obscenity laws to include an “artificially generated depiction.” The sponsors argue bad actors could evade prosecution for child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, if the images in their possession are made with AI.
Notably, the bill restricts this definition to depictions of an actual person. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as over broad a law prohibiting what “appears to be” obscene images of minors.
In addition to prohibiting AI-produced porn involving minors, the bill also bars several uses of AI to conduct identity fraud. That includes using deepfake porn as well as any other depiction intended to harm another person’s reputation. But it goes further — extending to fabricating a person’s image or voice to elicit a financial decision, for instance.
The group TechNet is made up of executives in the tech industry including several companies deeply invested in artificial intelligence. The organization didn’t send a representative to testify against the bill in person, but it did submit several objections to the measure as written.
The broad contours are familiar to many recent debates about emerging technology: don’t hold us liable for our users’ actions and don’t dictate our response to rapidly changing technology.
TechNet’s critique
TechNet was at pains to insist it supports lawmakers’ efforts to respond to fabricated imagery.
“We appreciate the committee’s efforts to address the challenges posed by deceptive media and believe that it is crucial to establish clear standards and protections in this evolving landscape — especially given the absence of federal law,” its testimony read.
As initially drafted, the Senate bill required a watermark on artificially generated media. TechNet argued tools for determining “content provenance” are good but objected the bill’s approach.
“Standardized, industrywide specifications are still emerging,” TechNet argued, “and it is important Ohio maintains a flexible approach that can align with best practice.”
Watermarks are “rigid” and “easily removed” the group insisted — putting markers in metadata makes more sense. Wednesday, the bill’s co-sponsor, state Sen. Louis Blessing, R-Colerain Twp., amended the measure. The change redefines watermark as “data embedded within an AI-generated product.” The amendment also clarified the bill is focused on generative AI.
When it comes to distribution of CSAM, the group argued its members are already working with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The group wants to ensure those efforts don’t “erroneously lead to liability.”
“We also recommend language making clear that liability should be squarely on the bad actor: the person creating, viewing, promoting, or distributing CSAM,” the group wrote.
As for broader protections of a person’s likeness, TechNet sought to distance its members from culpability. It depicted its members as “intermediaries” who “cannot see the content traversing over their networks and platforms.”
TechNet also pushed back forcefully on allowing anyone to file lawsuits for violations. That provision, “can lead to a flood of opportunistic lawsuits that burden courts, create legal uncertainty, and stifle innovation,” the group argued. Instead, the “sole enforcement” authority should rest with the Attorney General.
Where things stand
Although his amendment seems to push the bill closer to TechNet’s metadata suggestion, Blessing said he doesn’t believe it would bring the organization on board. He expressed frustration with the group’s opposition to allowing anyone to file a lawsuit. Unsurprisingly, Blessing said, there’s strong support within his party’s caucus to go after child pornography and identity fraud.
But if the provision allowing private lawsuits gets removed, “in a very large way, it guts the bill,” he argued.
“I have seen this time and time again in other states, in other bills,” Blessing said. “If you can sort of create a bottleneck in the AG’s office, you now have basically regulatory capture.”
“All the AG’s office has to do to help TechNet is to literally do nothing,” he added.
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.