Michigan House Bill HB4047

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 1/30/25
• Report Pass: 4/16/25
• Engrossed: 4/24/25
• Refer: 4/29/25
• Report Pass: 8/13/25
• Refer: 8/13/25
• Enrolled: 8/19/25
• Chaptered: 8/26/25
• Passed: 8/26/25

Caption

Civil procedure: civil actions; cause of action for media that falsely depicts an individual engaging in sexual conduct; provide for. Creates new act.

Impact

The passage of HB 4047 would significantly affect existing state laws regarding privacy and digital rights. It creates a legal framework explicitly addressing the harms caused by deep fakes, thus enhancing protections for individuals against identity theft and harassment through digital means. The bill also delineates between different types of violations, establishing misdemeanors and felonies based on the intent and outcome of the deep fake's creation or distribution. This distinction is crucial for law enforcement and for victims seeking recourse.

Summary

House Bill 4047, known as the 'Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act', aims to impose civil liability and establish criminal penalties for the nonconsensual creation or dissemination of deep fake sexual images. The bill defines a 'deep fake' as any digitally manipulated video or image that misrepresents an individual, particularly in sexual contexts, and establishes conditions under which victims can pursue legal action. Specifically, the bill allows individuals depicted in deep fakes to sue creators for damages if the creations result in harm to their emotional, reputational, or economic standing.

Sentiment

Public and legislative sentiment surrounding the bill appears largely supportive, reflecting growing concern over the misuse of technology to create harmful digital content. Advocates argue that the bill represents a necessary step toward safeguarding personal and digital integrity in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. However, there are concerns among some critics about the potential overreach of the law, particularly in terms of defining consent and the implications for free speech rights. This dichotomy draws attention to the complexities of balancing technological advancement with individual rights.

Contention

Key points of contention include the criteria for consent regarding the creation and dissemination of deep fakes. Critics emphasize the importance of establishing clear boundaries to prevent misuse of legal definitions that could inadvertently hinder legitimate expression or reporting. Moreover, there are apprehensions about the legal liabilities imposed on platforms and developers of deep fake technology, which could deter innovation and lead to unintended consequences in regulation. Balancing these interests will be crucial as the bill moves through the legislative process.