WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1823

Appropriation; Yazoo County for making critical infrastructure improvements to the Yazoo County Port.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Timaka James-Jones

Creates a civil remedy for nonconsensual intimate-image deepfakes and disclosures, with up to $150,000 in damages and injunctive relief to stop further publication.

Died In Committee
#appropriationsa
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1823

Summary — HB 1823

Note: The available document for HB 1823 appears to combine text from more than one jurisdiction and multiple amendments. Two distinct substantive strands appear: (A) an Arkansas-style “Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Nonconsensual Edits Act of 2025” (digital-forgery / nonconsensual intimate-image civil remedy), and (B) Illinois legislative changes to the Juvenile Court Act and related judiciary provisions (including Senate floor amendments). This summary summarizes both strands and notes procedural status reported in the record.

Purpose / Intent

  • Establish a civil cause of action and related protections for individuals harmed by nonconsensual intimate-image “digital forgeries” (deepfakes) and unlawful disclosure of intimate visual depictions.
  • (In the Illinois portion) Adjust juvenile-court procedures for court review, permanency hearings, and related judicial-administration changes (including exclusions from juvenile jurisdiction for certain serious offenses and county-specific judge/associate judge assignments).

Key provisions — Digital Forgeries / Nonconsensual Edits (Arkansas-style)

  • Creates the “Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Nonconsensual Edits Act of 2025” as a new chapter in Arkansas Code Title 4.
  • Definitions: “digital forgery,” “intimate visual depiction,” “identifiable individual,” “consent,” and “commercial pornographic content” (references to 18 U.S.C. §2256/§2257 as of Jan 1, 2025).
  • Civil causes of action:
    • For disclosure of an intimate visual depiction without consent when disclosure involves or affects interstate or foreign commerce (or uses interstate facilities) where defendant knowingly or recklessly disregarded lack of consent.
    • For subjects of digital forgeries against persons who knowingly produced/possessed with intent to disclose, or knowingly disclosed/solicited a digital forgery, when production/disclosure/possession affects interstate commerce and the subject did not consent.
  • Consent rules: consenting to creation of an image does not imply consent to disclosure; sharing with one person does not imply further consent.
  • Remedies:
    • Actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000.
    • Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
    • Equitable relief: temporary restraining orders, preliminary or permanent injunctions to stop display or disclosure; courts may order privacy protections (use of pseudonym, sealing/redaction, protective discovery orders).
  • Representation: legal guardian, estate representative, another family member, or court-appointed representative may assert claims for minors, incapacitated, or deceased persons (defendant cannot be named representative).

Key provisions — Juvenile Court & Judicial (Illinois)

  • Amends Juvenile Court Act (Sec. 5-745 / Sec. 5-130 in amendments):
    • Clarifies court-review procedures, case-plan filing every 6 months if DCFS is custodian, permanency hearings per referenced sections, reporting requirements for critical incidents, and notice to interested parties, ombudsperson, guardian ad litem, etc.
    • Modifies excluded jurisdiction rules for certain 16-year-old offenders (e.g., first-degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, certain aggravated battery/firearm offenses) and procedures for trying/charging minors as adults or juvenile court disposition hearings.
  • Senate amendments included changes to excluded jurisdiction language, conversion of at-large judgeships to resident judgeships in the 6th judicial circuit (Champaign/Macon counties) and addition of one associate judge position assigned to Sangamon County in the 7th circuit.

Who would be affected

  • Individuals (including minors) who are the subjects of nonconsensual intimate-image forgeries or whose intimate images are disclosed without consent.
  • Persons or entities that create, possess with intent to disclose, solicit, or publish digital forgeries — including private individuals, distributors, and potentially some online platforms depending on how “disclosure” and interstate commerce are interpreted.
  • In Illinois: minors involved in delinquency proceedings, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), juvenile-court stakeholders, circuit court administration in affected counties, and judicial appointment/election processes.

Remedies, penalties, and jurisdictional points

  • Civil (private) remedy — not a criminal statute in the text presented. Liquidated damages set at $150,000 (alternative to actual damages).
  • Federal-reference anchors: definitions mirror federal statutory language as of Jan 1, 2025, and several causes of action require that activity “affects interstate or foreign commerce” or uses interstate means/facilities.

Procedural / Status

  • The record attached indicates the bill “Died In Committee” at the sine die adjournment (House Committee) on 2025-05-05. The legislative-action log also shows extensive activity consistent with Illinois House and Senate amendments and committee actions, including Senate amendments and committee reports. A companion bill listed: SB 2082.
  • Because the document mixes versions and amendments across jurisdictions, the legislative history is inconsistent; readers should consult the official state legislature records for the specific jurisdiction (Arkansas or Illinois) and the bill number in that state for final status and authoritative text.

Notes / Caveats

  • The provided materials appear conflated: the “Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Nonconsensual Edits Act” language mirrors an Arkansas-style insertion into Title 4, while large portions of the document (and detailed legislative actions) reflect Illinois HB1823 amendments to juvenile-court and judiciary statutes. This summary separates and highlights both elements, but readers should verify which text applies in which state and consult the final enrolled bill or legislative clerk for definitive language and current status.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.