Broadcasters are putting more weight behind the NO FAKES Act, the federal proposal that would give people a clearer right to control unauthorized digital replicas of their voice and visual likeness.
The National Association of Broadcasters said state broadcaster associations representing all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have endorsed a resolution urging Congress to pass the 2026 version of the bill. The move is not a new law, but it is a useful signal: local TV and radio groups now see synthetic voice and likeness misuse as a trust issue, not just a Hollywood or music-industry problem.
That matters because broadcasters rely on recognizable people saying verifiable things. A convincing fake of a local anchor, reporter, radio host, athlete, mayor or emergency official can do damage before a correction catches up. The internet is not famous for waiting patiently while counsel reviews a takedown letter.
The revised NO FAKES Act was reintroduced in May by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Thom Tillis and Amy Klobuchar, with House support from Representatives Maria Salazar and Madeleine Dean. According to the sponsors, the bill would address non-consensual digital replicas in audiovisual works and sound recordings, including unauthorized uses of a person’s voice or visual likeness.
For studios, broadcasters and production companies, the issue is not simply “AI content.” It is consent and control. Has the performer, presenter or private individual agreed to the replica? Is the use licensed? Is it news, commentary, parody, criticism or another protected use? Who receives a takedown notice, and who decides whether the replica stays up while a dispute is reviewed?
The bill’s supporters say it would create a federal framework where the current system is patchy and state-based. The draft also includes exclusions for some First Amendment-protected uses, along with a counter-notice process and exemptions for libraries, archives and research institutions.
Those carve-outs are not small print. They are where much of the production risk will live. Newsrooms, documentary teams, satire shows, scripted producers, archive owners, platforms and rights teams will all need to know when a synthetic likeness requires permission and when it is protected expression. A law written too loosely could become another clearance trap; a law written too narrowly could leave performers, journalists and ordinary people exposed.
There is also criticism from digital-rights groups. Public Knowledge has argued that the current bill still needs significant changes and could create broad publicity rights with consequences beyond celebrity deepfakes. That debate is worth watching because any final law will have to balance real harms from synthetic impersonation against speech, ownership and downstream licensing problems.
For now, the broadcaster resolution is best read as pressure on Congress, not as a settled compliance roadmap. The operational work comes later: updating talent contracts, archive policies, synthetic-media disclosures, takedown procedures and review paths for AI-generated voice or likeness use.
The easy part is agreeing that fake people saying fake things can damage trust. The harder part is writing a law that catches the fraud without making legitimate production feel like it needs a permission slip from every ghost in the machine.