SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 564 (Leyva) - Depiction of individual using digital or electronic technology: sexually explicit material: cause of action

Bill Summary:

SB 564 would create a civil cause of action for the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually-explicit material depicting individuals in realistic digitized performances.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate lawsuits filed for the nonconsensual disclosure of the material that is the subject of this measure. While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Governor's proposed 2019-20 budget seeks to appropriate $52.5 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and penalty revenue for trial court operations. (General Fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Background:

Under existing law, a person has a private right of action against another person who intentionally distributes a photograph or recorded image of the first person that exposes their intimate body parts or the person engaged in specified sexual acts, without their consent, if the other person knew that the subject of the photograph or recording had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, if specified conditions are met.

Proposed Law:

This bill would provide an individual a specific cause of action and remedies against any person who creates and/or discloses sexually-explicit material without the consent of the individual depicted where the individual did not actually perform in the realistic digitized performance. This would include material where the nude body parts of another human being are depicted as being those of the individual, or digitally-created, nude body parts are imposed onto the individual. SB 564 would allow a plaintiff in such actions to proceed pseudonymously and would place confidentiality protections on associated materials.

A prevailing plaintiff would be allowed to recover any of the following:

• Economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by the disclosure of the sexually-explicit material, including damages for emotional distress.
• An amount equal to the monetary gain made by the defendant from the creation, development, or disclosure of the sexually-explicit material. Alternatively, the plaintiff may, at any time before the final judgment is rendered, recover an award of statutory damages for all unauthorized acts involved in the action, with respect to any one work, between $5,000 and $500,000.
• Punitive damages.
• Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
• Any other available relief, including injunctive relief.

This action must be brought no later than three years from the date the unauthorized creation, development, or disclosure was discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Related Legislation:

AB 602 (Berman, 2019) would expand a cause of action related to deceptive recording, as defined, where the apparent subject of the distributed material is falsely depicted to be the subject as the result of manipulation, editing, or other alteration of the material if a reasonable person would believe that the altered material is authentic. AB 602 is pending on the Assembly floor.

AB 1280 (Grayson, 2019) would have made it a crime for a person who prepares, produces, or develops, without the depicted individual’s consent, a “deepfake,” as defined, that depicts an individual engaging in sexual conduct, under specified circumstances involving the distribution, exhibition, or exchange of the deepfake. AB 1280 failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.

SB 157 (Wieckowski, Ch. 233, Stats. 2017) enhanced confidentiality requirements related to the plaintiff in civil “revenge porn” cases where a plaintiff uses a pseudonym.

Staff Comments:

The actual fiscal impact of SB 564 to the courts will depend on many unknown factors, including the numbers of incidents alleged to have occurred, the complexity of each allegation, if parties settle matters prior to litigation, and the factors unique to each case. While it is unknown how many actions for alleged nonconsensual disclosure of realistic digitized sexually-explicit material depicting an individual would be filed, it generally costs about $7,644 to operate a courtroom for one day. Additionally, it costs the court almost $2,900, on average, in personnel and resources to adjudicate a limited civil case and about $12,750, on average, in personnel and resources to adjudicate an unlimited civil case. These costs takes into consideration the time from when a petition or complaint is received by the court, processing and calendaring by the clerks, any hearings presided over by a judicial officer, and the finalizing of the outcome by the clerk. Consequently, if conduct described in this measure led to the filing of four or more new large cases, eighteen or more smaller cases, or a few complex cases that took longer than six days to adjudicate, the cost pressures to the court would surpass the Suspense File threshold. As indicated above, while the court is not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 564 (Author:Leyva)

Version: March 27, 2019

Hearing Date: April 30, 2019

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Depiction of individual using digital or electronic technology: sexually explicit material: cause of action

DIGEST

This bill provides a cause of action for the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit material depicting individuals in realistic digitized performances. The bill provides specified remedies and allows for the plaintiff in such cases to proceed using a pseudonym.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With the technological advances in digital editing capabilities, the use of such tools to alter audiovisual work to portray individuals in various states of undress and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct in which they are not actually performing has become an increasingly widespread issue.

This bill provides an individual a specific cause of action and robust remedies against any person who creates and/or discloses sexually explicit material without the consent of the individual depicted where the individual did not actually perform in the realistic digitized performance. This includes material where the nude body parts of another human being are depicted as being those of the individual, or digitally-created, nude body parts are imposed onto the individual. The bill allows a plaintiff in such actions to proceed pseudonymously and places confidentiality protections on associated materials consistent with California’s so-called “revenge porn” law.

This bill is sponsored by the Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA). It is supported by numerous labor unions. The California News Publishers Association and the California Broadcasters Association have written in opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Creates a private right of action against a person who intentionally distributes a photograph or recorded image of another that exposes that person’s intimate body parts, as defined, or shows the other person engaged in specified sexual acts, without that person’s consent, knowing that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, if specified conditions are met. (Civ. Code § 1708.85(a)-(c).)
2. Authorizes a plaintiff in a civil proceeding pursuant to these provisions to use a pseudonym instead of their true name and to exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the plaintiff. The court is required to keep the plaintiff’s name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential. (Civ. Code § 1708.85(f)(1).)
3. Places the responsibility solely with the parties and their attorneys, in the above proceedings, for excluding or redacting the name or identifying characteristics of the plaintiff from all documents filed with the court. The court is not required to review pleadings or other papers for compliance with this provision. (Civ. Code § 1708.85(f)(4).)
4. Provides that the clerk, upon request of the plaintiff, shall allow access to the court file in the above proceedings only as follows:
   1. to a party to the action, including a party’s attorney;
   2. to a person by order of the court on a showing of good cause for access; or
   3. to any person 60 days after judgment is entered unless the court grants a plaintiff’s motion to seal records pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Rules of Court. (Civ. Code § 1708.85(f)(4)-(5).)

This bill:

1. Provides that a depicted individual who has suffered harm resulting from the intentional disclosure of sexually explicit material without the depicted individual’s consent has a cause of action against a person who does either of the following:
   1. creates and discloses sexually explicit material in an audiovisual work and the person knew or reasonably should have known the depicted individual did not consent; or
   2. discloses, but did not create, sexually explicit material in an audiovisual work and the person knew the depicted individual did not consent.
2. Defines various relevant terms, including:
   1. “consent” means an agreement written in plain language signed knowingly and voluntarily by the depicted individual that includes a description of the sexually explicit material and the audiovisual work in which it will be incorporated;
   2. “depicted individual” means an individual depicted in a realistic digitized performance in which the individual did not actually perform. “Digitized” includes depicting the nude body parts of another human being as being those of the individual or imposing digitally created nude body parts onto the individual;
   3. “sexually explicit material” means any portion of an audiovisual work that shows the depicted individual performing in the nude or appearing to engage in, or being subjected to, sexual conduct; and
   4. “sexual conduct” means any of the following:
      1. masturbation;
      2. sexual intercourse, including genital, oral, or anal, whether between persons regardless of sex or gender or between humans and animals;
      3. sexual penetration of the mouth, vagina, or rectum by, or with, an object;
      4. the transfer of semen onto the depicted individual; or
      5. sadomasochistic abuse involving the depicted individual.
3. Provides that consent can be rescinded within three business days from the date it was provided, unless the depicted individual was given at least three days prior to signing to review the agreement or the depicted individual’s authorized representative provides written approval of the signed agreement.
4. Authorizes a plaintiff to proceed with the above action pseudonymously pursuant to specified procedures.
5. Authorizes the following remedies for prevailing plaintiffs in the above actions:
   1. economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by the disclosure of the sexually explicit material, including damages for emotional distress;
   2. an amount equal to the monetary gain made by the defendant from the creation, development, or disclosure of the sexually explicit material, or the plaintiff may, at any time before the final judgment is rendered, recover instead an award of statutory damages for all unauthorized acts involved in the action, with respect to any one work, in a sum not less than $5,000 or more than $500,000;
   3. punitive damages;
   4. reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
   5. any other available relief, including injunctive relief.
6. Establishes a statute of limitations of five years from the date the plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the unauthorized creation, development, or disclosure.
7. Provides that a person is not liable for the above conduct if the person proves any of the following:
   1. the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in the course of reporting unlawful activity, in the course of a legal proceeding, or the person is a member of law enforcement and disclosed the sexually explicit material in the course of exercising the person’s law enforcement duties;
   2. the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in relation to a matter of legitimate public concern;
   3. the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in a work of political or newsworthy value, or similar work. However, such material is not of newsworthy value because the depicted individual is a public figure; or
   4. the person disclosed the sexually explicit material for the purposes of commentary or criticism or the disclosure is otherwise protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

COMMENTS

1. Combating deepfakes

This bill aims to address the growing concerns associated with what are called “deepfakes,” a term drawn from “deep learning” plus “fake”). There are various manifestations, but essentially all involve the digital manipulation of audiovisual material to falsely depict an individual engaging in certain conduct. One privacy expert describes the problem relevant here: “Although political deepfakes are relatively new, pornographic deepfakes have been a problem for some time. These often purport to show a famous actress or model involved in a sex act but actually show the subject’s face superimposed onto another woman’s body.”^[1] Given the explicit content of some deepfakes, the consequences can be serious.

These nonconsensual depictions are not a victimless crime. They cause real harm. Even if it is not really [their] body, an actor depicted as participating in a sex scene may find it difficult to get cast in more family-friendly productions. Moreover, [the actor] may endure considerable emotional trauma as a result of being exploited in this horrific way.^[2]

The rapid evolution of the underlying technology has only exacerbated the problem:

Recent improvements in artificial intelligence software have made it surprisingly easy to graft the heads of stars, and ordinary women, to the bodies of X-rated actresses to create realistic videos.

These explicit movies are just one strain of so-called “deepfakes,” which are clips that have been doctored so well they look real. Their arrival poses a threat to democracy; mischief makers can, and already have, used them to spread fake news. But another great danger of deepfakes is their use as a tool to harass and humiliate women.^[3]

This bill aims to address this problem by creating a cause of action against any person creating and/or intentionally disclosing sexually explicit material without the depicted individual’s consent. It holds liable those creating and disclosing the material when they knew or reasonably should have known the individual depicted did not provide consent. Additionally, the cause of action can be brought against a person who intentionally discloses the material if they knew the individual did not consent, a slightly higher standard.

The action can be brought by a “depicted individual,” defined as “an individual depicted in a realistic digitized performance in which the individual did not actually perform.” The term “digitized” includes “depicting the nude body parts of another human being as being those of the individual or imposing digitally created nude body parts onto the individual.” The relevant content must involve “sexually explicit material,” defined as “any portion of an audiovisual work that shows the depicted individual performing in the nude or appearing to engage in, or being subjected to, sexual conduct.” The bill provides a thorough definition for what constitutes “sexual conduct.”

The bill is intended to get at both deepfakes that the depicted individual has taken no part in and deepfakes that the individual participates in but which are digitally altered to expose more intimate body parts, for example. The definition of depicted individual indicates the relevant performance is one in which the individual “did not actually perform.” While this phrase is likely intended to mean that the individual did not perform the explicit conduct/baring of the body part, the author may wish to consider clarifying this definition so that it is inclusive of all conduct intended to be covered by the bill.

The cause of action hinges on the “consent” of the depicted individual. Consent is narrowly defined, prescribing a very particular form of achieving the required sign-off on creating and disclosing this material. Consent must consist of (1) an agreement; (2) written in plain language; (3) signed knowingly and voluntarily; (4) including a description of the sexually explicit material and the audiovisual work in which it will be incorporated. In order to avoid an individual being forced to sign such agreements under duress or without an opportunity to fully evaluate their terms, the bill further provides that the individual must be given three days to review the terms of the agreement or the ability to rescind the agreement within three days of consenting, unless an attorney, talent agent, or personal manager authorized to represent the individual, or if none, a labor union, provides written approval of the signed agreement.

The bill makes available extremely robust remedies. It allows an injured plaintiff to recover economic and noneconomic damages as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff can also recover the equivalent monetary amount of whatever monetary gain was made from the material. However, the plaintiff may, instead of this latter amount, recover statutory damages of not less than $5,000 and not more than $500,000. All of this is in addition to punitive damages. Given the wide range of discretion of statutory damages, it is likely that damages of a punitive nature are already baked into the award. Ultimately, the factfinder will have wide discretion as to the appropriate amount of recovery to be awarded. In addition, the plaintiff can seek injunctive relief, likely the ability to halt the further disclosure of the sexually explicit content. These hefty remedies are arguably extremely strong deterrents from engaging in the prohibited conduct.

The bill establishes a statute of limitations of no longer than five years from the date the unauthorized creation, development, or disclosure was discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. This is a relatively lengthy statute. For comparison, actions for libel or slander must be brought within one year and an action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake must be brought within three years. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 338, 340.) The relevant policy considerations have been laid out by California courts:

Our Supreme Court has explained the competing policy interests inherent in a statute of limitations defense. “A statute of limitations strikes a balance among conflicting interests. If it is unfair to bar a plaintiff from recovering on a meritorious claim, it is also unfair to require a defendant to defend against possibly false allegations concerning long-forgotten events, when important evidence may no longer be available. Thus, statutes of limitations are not mere technical defenses, allowing wrongdoers to avoid accountability. [Citation.] Rather, they mark the point where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the equities tip in favor of the defendant (who may be innocent of wrongdoing) and against the plaintiff (who failed to take prompt action): ‘[T]he period allowed for instituting suit inevitably reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones.’ [Citation.]” (Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 788, 797.)

(Baxter v. State Teachers' Retirement System (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 340, 357-358.)

In order to bring the statute of limitations more in line with similar statutes, the author has agreed to an amendment to reduce the applicable limitations period from five years to three years.

1. Stated intent of the bill

According to the author:

Senate Bill 564 directly addresses two important issues that can be extremely damaging to a person’s life, career, public perception and even mental health.

First, as it is a serious decision for any performer to do a nude scene, any digitally created sexually explicit material should be carefully scripted and agreed upon in advance. It is inappropriate to ambush a performer with a nudity rider on set, away from an authorized personal representative or their labor union. These last-minute riders are a problem in the entertainment industry and any applicable law should legally prohibit them unless certain safeguards are satisfied.

Second, new technologies—such as deepfakes—allow content creators to manipulate images to depict individuals as engaging in sexual activity or performing in the nude without their consent or participation. As reported by the Washington Post and many other news outlets, individuals (mostly women) are being harassed or exploited online with these videos. Internet users can use a publicly available artificial intelligence algorithm to transform still images of a person into live action performances by realistically inserting his or her face onto the body of a porn performer.

SB 564 will help protect performers in California from these harmful situations that can oftentimes have lifelong negative consequences for the victim.

SAG-AFTRA, the sponsor of the bill, writes:

SB 564 addresses a significant and growing problem in the entertainment industry that negatively impacts our members, particularly female actors. New technologies allow content creators to alter a person’s image to depict that individual as engaging in sexual activity or to appear as performing in the nude when neither actually occurred. This so-called “deepfake” technology is often used as a tool of exploitation and harassment on the internet, however, it can be used by mainstream filmmakers as well.

Filmmakers, without the meaningful consent of the actress involved, can digitally alter a scene to show more nudity or sexually explicit acts in post-production. This can be incredibly damaging to a reputation and career. Once the digitally altered film or image is out in the world, its negative impact is very difficult to control, and the damage can be lasting and permanent.

1. First Amendment concerns with the right of action

In response to the broad limitations being placed on the creation and disclosure of this material and the provision of injunctive relief, various First Amendment concerns have been raised.

The bill includes specific exemptions attempting to navigate this terrain. It provides that a person is not liable if the person proves any of the following:

• the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in the course of reporting unlawful activity, in the course of a legal proceeding, or the person is a member of law enforcement and disclosed the sexually explicit material in the course of exercising the person’s law enforcement duties;
• the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in relation to a matter of legitimate public concern;
• the person disclosed the sexually explicit material in a work of political or newsworthy value, or similar work;
• the person disclosed the sexually explicit material for the purposes of commentary or criticism; or
• the disclosure is otherwise protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

It should be noted that the bill also provides that “sexually explicit material is not of newsworthy value because the depicted individual is a public figure.” Given the stated intent of this language, the author may wish to consider including “solely” or “simply” before “because” so that this provision is clearer.

Even given these exemptions, the California News Publishers Association has written in opposition to this bill stating the exemptions are “inadequate” to fully carve out protected forms of expression. It argues that the scope of the bill should be narrowed to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment.

Writing in support, noted First Amendment scholar and professor of constitutional law Erwin Chemerinsky concludes that the legislation does not pose “any issues of constitutional concern.” He states:

While the content regulated by this statute may be “speech” insofar as the First Amendment is concerned, it is a longstanding precept of First Amendment doctrine that “not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.” See, e.g., Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758-759 (1985). And it is likewise true that “speech on matters of purely private concern is of less First Amendment concern.” Id. at 759. The U.S. Supreme Court has correctly recognized that “sexual behavior” is “the most private human conduct.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003). By regulating the nonconsensual use of an individual’s persona in sexually explicit audiovisual works, Senate Bill 564 does not target any forms of expression that have historically received First Amendment protection.

He goes on to assert that protecting victims from the “serious reputational and economic harms” that can result from this conduct more than justifies regulating this false and misleading material that arguably lacks social value.

Different standards of constitutional scrutiny apply depending on whether the restriction on expression is content-neutral or content-based. Chemerinsky argues that the proposed statute “comfortably satisfies the former, more lenient standard. However, he goes on to argue that even if deemed content-based regulation of speech, SB 564 is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest and therefore withstands constitutional scrutiny, relying in part on the significant exemptions discussed above.

The opposition continues to have concerns that the exemptions are not enough and that the definitions could trigger liability even where the news entity is simply reporting on a deepfake story, for instance, or has simply gathered such materials internally for investigation. The author’s office has committed to continuing to engage with those in opposition to address these issues.

Specifically addressing any concerns with the availability of injunctive relief, Chemerinsky writes: “Because of the unique and ubiquitous manner in which digital content is disseminated on the internet, the possibility of injunctive relief is likely to be a necessary remedy to staunch the spread of unlawful content.” This is bolstered by the fact that California grants injunctive relief only where there would otherwise be irreparable injury, and there is some likelihood the plaintiff is entitled to relief. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526.)

1. Proceeding pseudonymously

In the civil action provided for by this bill, a plaintiff is authorized to proceed using a pseudonym and to exclude or redact other identifying characteristics from all pleadings and documents filed in the action. The court is required to keep the plaintiff’s name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential. The parties and their attorneys are required to use the pseudonym in all pleadings, discovery documents, and other documents filed or served in the action, and at hearings, trial, and other court proceedings that are open to the public, and to exclude or redact any identifying characteristics of the plaintiff. “Identifying characteristics” includes information such as name, race or ethnic background, telephone number, email address, social media profiles, or online identifiers.

Upon the plaintiff’s request, the clerk must allow access to the court file in these actions only to a party or their attorney, to a person by order of the court on a showing of good cause for access, and to any person 60 days after judgment is entered unless the court grants a plaintiff’s motion to seal records pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Rules of Court.

As a matter of public policy, because the public has a First Amendment right to access records, the use of pseudonyms in cases should be the exception, not the rule. However, there is precedent under California law for doing so in certain cases to safeguard the individual’s privacy and prevent harassment, including cases involving victims of sexual offenses and in cases where the courts find it necessary to safeguard the individual’s privacy and prevent harassment of a health care patient, licensed health practitioner, or employee, client, or customer of a health care facility who is a party or witness in the proceeding. (See Pen. Code §§ 293, 293.5; Civ. Code § 3427.3; see also Health & Saf. Code § 120291.)

“California courts have affirmed the ability to proceed as a pseudonymous plaintiff under circumstances in which privacy rights are implicated.” (Doe v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 915, 919.) “The judicial use of ‘Doe plaintiffs’ to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web.” (Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452, fn. 7.)

The procedures laid out in this bill are identical, save a few technical changes, to those provided for in California’s so-called “revenge porn” law. That law provides a private cause of action for the intentional distribution of a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another that exposes an intimate body part of the other person or shows them engaging in sexual conduct, without the other’s consent, if the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private. (Civ. Code § 1708.85.)

Given the intimate nature of the material involved in violations of this bill, there are legitimate privacy rights at stake and allowing for pseudonymous actions provides appropriate protections for victims who might not otherwise bring such actions.

SUPPORT

Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (sponsor)
Association of Talent Agents

California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union

California Conference of Machinists

California IATSE Council

California Labor Federation

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law

Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO

Entertainment Union Coalition

Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific

Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, AFL-CIO

UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO

Utility Workers of America

OPPOSITION

California Broadcasters Association

California News Publishers Association

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending:

AB 602 (Berman, 2019) makes a person who creates a deceptive recording, as defined, with the intent to distribute the recording or who willfully distributes a deceptive recording that the person knows or reasonably should have known is a deceptive recording, knowing that the recording defames the subject of the recording, liable for general and special damages that are proximately caused by those actions. This bill is currently in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

AB 1280 (Grayson, 2019) criminally prohibits a person from preparing, producing, or developing, without the depicted individual’s consent, a deepfake that depicts an individual engaging in sexual conduct, under specified circumstances involving the distribution, exhibition, or exchange of the deepfake. A “deepfake” is defined as a recording that has been created or altered in a manner that it would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of the individual depicted in the recording. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Prior: SB 157 (Wieckowski, Ch. 233, Stats. 2017) strengthened the confidentiality provisions applicable to civil actions brought pursuant to Civil Code Section 1708.85. The bill addressed some vulnerabilities in existing protections relating to those civil actions and expanded the existing definition of the “identifying characteristics” that are to be redacted or excluded from court documents. It also further circumscribed access to court files in such cases.

**************

1. Nicholas Schmidt, Privacy law and resolving 'deepfakes' online (January 30, 2019) IAPP, https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-law-and-resolving-deepfakes-online/ [as of Apr. 25, 2019]. All further internet citations are available as of April 25, 2019. ↑

2. David White, Deepfake Technology Is an Attack on Consent and Actors’ Rights to Control Sex Scenes (February 21, 2019) The Wrap, https://www.thewrap.com/deepfake-tech-consent-actors-rights-sex-scenes/. ↑

3. Jeff John Roberts, Fake Porn Videos Are Terrorizing Women. Do We Need a Law to Stop Them? (January 15, 2019) Fortune, http://fortune.com/2019/01/15/deepfakes-law/. ↑