Summary#
A-11720 would add a new article to New York’s General Business Law and a new fund to the State Finance Law. Its stated goal is to prohibit certain services from enabling realistic images or videos that depict an identifiable person with an intimate part not shown in the original image, and to direct recovered penalties toward victim services. The bill is introduced and is not law; whether it will pass is uncertain.
- Website, app, software, program, or service operators would be barred from letting users access, download, or use their service to “nudify” an image, or from doing so for a user.
- Anyone would be barred from advertising or promoting a service that performs those actions.
- Those prohibitions would not apply when the service requires a user to apply defined “technical skill”: substantial, individual technological or artistic skill and judgment by a human creator.
- A person depicted in an image nudified in violation of the bill could sue for damages, punitive damages, an injunction (a court order to stop conduct), legal fees, and other relief.
- The Attorney General could seek court orders, repayment, profits, damages, and civil penalties of up to $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use of an image.
- State fines and civil penalties would go into a new fund. It could also receive other money, and its grants would support the direct needs of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.
What it means for you#
- Operators and advertisers: If the bill becomes law, operators would have to avoid the prohibited uses unless the technical-skill exception applies. People who advertise or promote covered services would also be prohibited from doing so. The bill does not set out a required screening or review process.
- People depicted in images: They could bring a civil case if their image was nudified in violation of the bill. The bill does not directly make the depicted person responsible for the violation.
- Victim-service providers and people seeking services: The new fund could make grants for direct assistance, housing, mental and behavioral health support, other supportive services, prevention and awareness programs, and support for direct-service workers. The bill does not guarantee that grants will be available or that any particular person or provider will receive one.
- Users and the public: The bill does not directly prohibit users from nudifying images. The technical-skill exception may also leave some services outside the prohibitions. The bill says it does not change or expand the protections federal law gives interactive computer services for content provided by others.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s implementation costs or expected revenue.
- The fund could receive fines and civil penalties, as well as money appropriated or transferred to it and gifts or grants. Penalty revenue would depend on violations and recoveries; the bill does not estimate an amount.
- Fund money could be spent only on grants for the listed victim-support purposes. Payments would require approval and certification by one of three named state officials and an audit and warrant from the state comptroller.
- The bill creates no stated appropriation or fee. It does not estimate staffing, enforcement, or grant-administration costs.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not specify how operators must identify covered services or ensure users cannot access, download, or use them for nudification.
- The technical-skill exception turns on what skill a service “requires.” The bill does not say how that requirement would be assessed or who would decide.
- It does not set grant application rules, eligibility criteria, award amounts, timelines, or oversight and reporting requirements.
- The term “intimate part” is defined by reference to a Penal Law provision, whose text was not supplied. No publicly available information in the supplied material clarifies how it applies here.
- The current versions of the General Business Law, State Finance Law, and referenced Penal Law provision were not supplied, so their existing rules and any overlap with this bill could not be verified.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address services that enable realistic, altered intimate images of identifiable people, while giving depicted people a way to seek court relief.
- A possible argument for the technical-skill exception is that the bill targets services that enable users without substantial human skill, rather than every tool capable of altering an image.
- Directing recovered penalties to victim services could connect enforcement to support for people affected by sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.
Case against#
- The technical-skill exception could leave some services outside the ban, but the bill does not explain how the exception would be applied.
- The bill creates significant potential penalties but does not spell out how violations would be counted or how the penalty provision applies to advertising and promotion.
- Operators face a prohibition without specified compliance rules, timelines, or review procedures, leaving important questions for courts or later guidance.
- The fund’s possible sources include penalties, but the bill gives no guaranteed funding amount or detailed rules for distributing grants.