S.23 (Act 75 of 2026): An act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections
In effectRequired disclaimer, word for word
“This media has been manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.”
- Citation
- 17 V.S.A. 2031 to 2033 (subchapter 4), 2041 to 2042 (subchapter 5)
- Enacted
- March 5, 2026
- Effective
- March 5, 2026
- When it applies
- within 90 days before an election in Vermont
- Media covered
- Images, audio recordings, and video recordings of an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct created or intentionally manipulated with digital technology, including artificial intelligence. Only "deceptive and fraudulent" synthetic media is regulated: media that appears to a reasonable person to realistically depict (A) a political candidate in a way that injures a candidate's reputation, or (B) an individual in a way that attempts to unduly influence an election, including a public question, by giving voters materially false information.
- Who it covers
- Any person who publishes, communicates, or otherwise distributes the media
- Rule
- ban unless disclosed
- Intent required
- The person must know the media is deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media; penalties apply to knowing and intentional violations.
- Disclaimer format
- Images and video: text in a size easily readable by the average viewer and accessible to people with disabilities to the greatest extent possible; for video, displayed for the full duration. Audio only: read in a clearly spoken manner, at a pitch and pace easily heard by the average listener, at the beginning and end of the audio, and if longer than two minutes, repeated at intervals of no more than two minutes.
- Exemptions
- radio, TV, cable, satellite, websites, streaming platforms, and apps airing the media in a bona fide newscast, news interview, documentary, commentary, or on-the-spot news coverage, if the broadcast clearly acknowledges questions about authenticity
- broadcasters and platforms that are paid to broadcast the media
- broadcasters required by federal law to air ads from legally qualified candidates
- newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and news websites that clearly state the media does not accurately represent the person
- satire or parody
- telecommunications and information service providers for content provided by another person
- interactive computer services (47 U.S.C. 230) for content provided by another person
- Civil penalty
- Fines for knowing and intentional violations (17 V.S.A. 2033(a)): up to $1,000; up to $5,000 with intent to cause violence or bodily harm; up to $10,000 for a repeat violation within five years; up to $15,000 for both. Obstructing an AG or State's Attorney civil investigation: fine up to $5,000.
- Who can sue
- A candidate whose appearance, speech, conduct, or environment is misrepresented may seek injunctive or other equitable relief to stop distribution. No damages remedy is created.
- Injunction available
- Yes
- Court challenges
- Poitras v. Clark, No. 2:26-cv-234 (D. Vt.), filed July 8, 2026, challenges Act 75 under the First Amendment (facial and as-applied) after the Attorney General served a civil investigative demand over an AI satire video of Rep. Becca Balint. On Sept. 4, 2026 Judge Sessions granted a narrow preliminary injunction: the AG may not enforce that demand (AGO Matter No. 26-SM-101) or take Act 75 action against the plaintiff over that one video. The court expressly did not rule on the law's facial validity, and said the statute's reference to criminal prosecution is likely severable. Act 75 otherwise remains enforceable; a motion to dismiss was pending as of Oct. 2026.
- Notes
- Signed by Gov. Phil Scott March 5, 2026 and effective on passage. The Attorney General or a State's Attorney may bring any action or injunction to prevent or abate violations of 17 V.S.A. chapter 35 and has civil investigative demand powers (17 V.S.A. 2041 to 2042). Section 2033 sets fines without labeling them criminal, but the notice for an investigative demand must warn that a knowing and intentional violation is subject to criminal prosecution; the federal court in Poitras v. Clark questioned that criminal reference and called it likely severable. The Vermont Association of Broadcasters has published guidance on the law.