Law / United States / 
Hawaii
Election Deepfake Disclosure Law (2024 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 191, S.B. 2687)
Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-303, 11-304 (2024 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 191)
An AI transparency rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Prohibition, Content labelling
- Audit expectation
- none
- Setting the rule reaches
- Elections
What it requires
- Do not recklessly distribute, or agree with another person to distribute, materially deceptive media (an AI-generated, computer-generated, or otherwise digitally altered video, image, or audio depicting a real, identifiable person saying or doing something they did not say or do) between the first working day of February of an even-numbered year and the next general election, unless the media carries a conspicuous disclaimer in the form the section specifies.
- The prohibition does not reach a broadcaster, cable operator, direct-to-home satellite provider, interactive computer service, cloud service provider, or streaming service that did not create the deceptive media and does not know it is deceptive and intend to deceive a Hawaii resident.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: The Babylon Bee, LLC v. Lopez, Civ. No. 25-00234 SASP-KJM (D. Haw. ) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- NIST AI 600-1
- GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
- GAI-RISK-11Obscene, Degrading, and/or Abusive Content
- MIT mitigations Draft
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- ETSI EN 304 223
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
A first violation is a petty misdemeanor (fine up to $1,000 under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-640(1)(e)); a repeat violation within five years is a misdemeanor (fine up to $2,000 under § 706-640(1)(d)); a violation committed with intent to cause violence or bodily harm is a class C felony (fine up to $10,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment under §§ 706-640(1)(c), 706-660).
Penalty structure
Maximum criminal fine varies by tier: petty misdemeanor $1,000, misdemeanor (repeat violation) $2,000, class C felony (violation with intent to cause violence or bodily harm) $10,000 plus up to 5 years imprisonment, under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 706-640, 706-660. The commission may separately assess a civil fine, and a court may award a prevailing civil plaintiff attorney's fees and costs under § 11-304(a), plus a civil fine of up to $1,000 per day for violating an injunction under § 11-304(b).
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Fixed cap
- 10,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
The Campaign Spending Commission, which may assess a fine or refer a violation for criminal prosecution; the attorney general, a county attorney or prosecutor, the depicted individual, an injured candidate and voter-interest organizations through civil actions under section 11-304.
Settledness
The judgment permanently enjoins the State Defendants from enforcing Act 191. The parties' stipulation records the State Defendants' agreement to pay the plaintiffs' fees and costs and mentions no appeal.
- As of
- Case citation
- The Babylon Bee, LLC v. Lopez, Civ. No. 25-00234 SASP-KJM (D. Haw. )
- Open questions
- Does the permanent injunction against the State Defendants, who are the Attorney General, the members of the Campaign Spending Commission and the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu, stop a depicted individual or candidate from suing for damages under section 11-304(a)?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Section 11-303(a) prohibits recklessly distributing, or agreeing to distribute, materially deceptive media between the first working day of February of an even-numbered year and the next general election unless a disclaimer in the stated form is shown; section 11-304 gives injured parties and public enforcers civil actions. Neither section states a duty to create, keep or produce on demand any record of a distribution or of a disclaimer.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Section 11-303 prohibited recklessly distributing, or agreeing with another person to distribute, "materially deceptive media" (an AI-generated, computer-generated, or otherwise digitally altered video, image, or audio depicting a real, identifiable person saying or doing something they did not say or do, that a reasonable viewer would believe genuine) between the first working day of February of an even-numbered year and the following general election, unless the media carried a conspicuous disclaimer in the form the section specifies; section 11-304 gave a depicted individual, a candidate, the attorney general, the campaign spending commission, and certain other parties a civil action for damages or injunctive relief.
On , the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in Babylon Bee, LLC v. Lopez and permanently enjoined the state defendants from enforcing Act 191. The court held it an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction. The statutory text has not been repealed.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 1 court ruling.
What each ruling held, what it means for an app, and whether it still stands are premium data, in the Plus, Pro and Enterprise plans.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates audio with AI, generates images with AI or generates video with AI.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .