Law / United States / 
Ohio
S.B. 163, AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material and Nonconsensual Replica Prohibitions
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2907.321 2907.322, 2907.323, and 2913.49, as proposed to be amended by S.B. 163, 136th General Assembly (2025-2026 Session)
Before the second chamber, dated , as of .
An AI prohibited practices rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Prohibition
- Audit expectation
- none
- Setting the rule reaches
- General
Where it has got to
The text described here is As Passed by the Senate. That print is 02_PS, published .
Locally, this stage is House Technology and Innovation Committee.
The stage above is recorded at www.legislature.ohio.gov.
Senate passed SB 163 30-0 on . Introduced in the House and referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee ; no committee or floor action recorded since. The 136th General Assembly runs through .
What it requires
- What follows describes the bill as passed by the Ohio Senate.
- Do not create, reproduce, publish, sell, disseminate, or possess material showing a minor, a computer-generated or artificially generated depiction of a minor, or a depiction of a purported minor engaged in the prohibited conduct; this would reach material with no real child involved at all.
- Do not create or use a nonconsensual AI-generated replica of a real person's voice, image, or likeness to induce a financial decision or extend credit, or to damage that person's or an entity's reputation.
- Do not create, use, or disseminate a nonconsensual AI-generated replica of a real person, who is not a minor or impaired person, depicting them in a state of nudity, engaging in sexual activity, or in other obscene material.
- Providing or developing the underlying AI technology used to create a replica would not itself violate this measure unless the provider or developer is the one committing the violation.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
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
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- 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
Criminal exposure note
As passed by the Senate, the amendment leaves the existing felony-degree structure for §§ 2907.321 to .323 unchanged: if the offense involves a minor or a depiction of a purported minor, the principal offenses under each section are a felony of the second degree (imprisonment two to eight years or more depending on the specific section, fine of not more than $15,000); if the offense involves an impaired person, a felony of the third degree (fine of not more than $10,000); simple possession is typically a felony of the fourth or fifth degree (fine of not more than $5,000 or $2,500), escalating on a prior conviction. Section 2913.49's own penalty division, unchanged in structure by this bill, separately governs the new replica prohibitions along with the rest of the section: identity fraud is a felony of the fifth degree by default (fine of not more than $2,500), rising with the value of the credit, property, services, debt, or other obligation involved to a felony of the fourth degree at $1,000 or more, a felony of the third degree at $7,500 or more, and a felony of the second degree at $150,000 or more (fine of not more than $15,000); where the victim is a minor, an elderly person, a disabled adult, or an active-duty service member or their spouse, each threshold instead produces a felony one degree higher, up to a felony of the first degree at $150,000 or more in value (fine of not more than $20,000).
Penalty structure
The $20,000 figure is the maximum fine for a felony of the first degree, the ceiling that applies to identity fraud, including the new replica prohibitions added to § 2913.49, against a protected-class victim (a minor, an elderly person, a disabled adult, or an active-duty service member or their spouse) where the value involved is $150,000 or more. The CSAM-related felony degrees and their fine ceilings are unchanged from current law: $15,000 for a felony of the second degree (an offense involving a minor or a depiction of a purported minor under §§ 2907.321 or 2907.322), down to $2,500 for a felony of the fifth degree (simple possession under § 2907.323). Fine amounts are set generally for all Ohio felonies at R.C. 2929.18(A)(3), not within these sections themselves.
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Fixed cap
- 20,000
What it makes you log
Logging duty
The bill would extend the offenses of pandering obscenity and pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor to artificially generated depictions of a minor, and would add offenses for creating or using a replica of a person's persona to defraud, to damage reputation, or in nude or sexual depictions. These are conduct prohibitions with criminal penalties; none requires anyone to create, keep or produce on demand a record.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Senate Bill 163 passed the Ohio Senate on and was referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee on ; what follows describes it as the Senate passed it. Ohio's child-exploitation statutes currently reach only material showing an actual minor.
As passed by the Senate, §§ 2907.321 to .323 would be amended to add a computer-generated or artificially generated depiction of a minor, and to add a "depiction of a purported minor," defined as a visual representation that appears to depict an actual minor that a reasonable person would believe depicts or represents an actual minor, but that may or may not actually depict a real child; this would reach material generated entirely by artificial intelligence with no real child involved at all, without changing the existing felony-degree structure for these offenses.
Separately, § 2913.49 (Ohio's identity-fraud statute) would be amended to add a "replica of a person's persona," a modified or fabricated version of an individual's voice, photograph, image, likeness, or distinctive appearance created or presented so that it appears to be the individual's authentic persona, including one produced in whole or in part by a generative AI system; new prohibitions would bar creating or using such a replica, without the depicted person's consent, to induce a financial decision or extend credit, to damage a person's or entity's reputation, or, where the depicted person is not a minor or impaired person, to depict them in nudity, sexual activity, or other obscene material.
The bill does not extend a civil action of its own to the new financial-inducement or reputational-harm replica prohibitions: the existing civil action for persons injured by a criminal act (R.C. 2307.60) remains available only for a violation of the identity-theft provisions in divisions (B), (D), or (E) of the amended section, which already reach a replica used with intent to defraud, and the new civil action added by this measure (R.C. 2307.66) reaches only the nonconsensual sexual or nude replica prohibition. The provider or developer of the underlying AI technology is excluded unless it is itself the violator.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates audio with AI, generates images with AI, generates video with AI or publishes adult content.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .