Law / United States / New York / New York City
Prohibiting the Unauthorized Depiction of Public Officials by Artificial Intelligence
N.Y.C. Council Int. No. 504 of 2026 (proposed Admin. Code tit. 3, new ch. 12, § 1057-h)
In committee, dated , as of .
An AI sector rules rule binding private bodies.
- What it reaches
- duty
As of .
Where it has got to
The text described here is Bill text of Int. No. 504 as posted on the Council's legislation record, with no amendment letter, published .
Locally, this stage is heard and laid over by the Committee of the Whole.
The stage above is recorded at legistar.council.nyc.gov.
The bill was introduced and referred to committee on , re-referred to committee on , and heard and laid over by the Committee of the Whole on . The record carries no amendment letter and does not date the publication of the text, so the version date shown is that of introduction.
What it requires
- This measure is proposed and binds nobody yet; what follows is what it would require if enacted in this form.
- It would require an owner, licensee or operator of a system that generates materially deceptive audio or visual media, once a candidate has notified it in writing, or by another method it provides that lets it verify the person's identity, that it is not authorized to produce such media of that person, to implement a method preventing users from generating such media of that person within 60 days of a covered election.
- It would treat that duty as met by a blocking method that is consistent with industry standards, not overly burdensome on the system, cost-effective to implement and maintain, and up to date.
What this law does
This measure is proposed and binds nobody yet.
Sponsored by Council Member Nantasha M. Williams, it would let an elected official or a candidate for nomination for election notify any owner, licensee or operator of a system that generates materially deceptive audio or visual media (a video, image or sound recording intentionally manipulated to depict speech or conduct by a candidate, some or all of which did not occur, and so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it did) of their refusal to authorize it to produce such media of them within 120 days of a covered election.
For a candidate who gives that notice, the entity would have to implement a method preventing users from generating such media of that person within 60 days of a covered election, and the method would meet the duty if it is consistent with industry standards, not overly burdensome on the system, cost-effective to implement and maintain and up to date.
An entity that fails to comply and permits the unauthorized creation or dissemination of such media would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,500 per depiction, and the official or candidate could seek injunctive relief.
The bill would not apply where the system's outputs are processed by a third party with no ownership or control over the underlying generative model, would not make an entity liable where it implemented a method and still could not prevent a depiction, for incidental or unforeseeable depictions, or where no notice was sent, and would take effect 120 days after it becomes law.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates content with AI or processes voice recordings.