Ohio senators are facing resistance regarding a proposal to introduce new regulations on the use of artificial intelligence in creating pornography, particularly images involving minors. The proposal, which has gained attention for its potential impact on both technology and legal frameworks, is being contested by a coalition of tech industry leaders.
Proposal and Opposition
Senate Bill 163 seeks to update state obscenity laws by incorporating an ‘artificially generated depiction’ clause. Proponents of the bill argue that without such measures, individuals involved in child sexual abuse material (CSAM) could exploit AI-generated images to escape prosecution. The bill specifically limits this definition to depictions of real individuals, aligning with a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws banning images that merely ‘appear to be’ obscene depictions of minors.
Beyond prohibiting AI-generated pornography involving minors, the legislation also aims to curtail the use of AI in committing identity fraud. This includes the creation of deepfake porn and any other AI-generated depictions intended to damage someone’s reputation or influence financial decisions.
TechNet’s Position
TechNet, an organization composed of tech company executives with significant investments in artificial intelligence, has expressed concerns over the bill. While the organization did not present its objections in person, it submitted a detailed critique of the proposal. The group’s objections follow a familiar theme in debates surrounding new technologies: concerns about liability for user actions and the imposition of rigid responses to evolving technologies.
TechNet acknowledges the importance of addressing deceptive media and establishing protective standards, especially in the absence of federal guidelines. However, the group finds the bill’s initial requirement for watermarks on AI-generated content problematic. They argue that tools for determining ‘content provenance’ are beneficial but oppose the bill’s current approach. TechNet insists that standardized, industry-wide specifications are still developing and that Ohio should adopt a flexible approach to align with best practices. The organization contends that watermarks are too rigid and can be easily removed, suggesting metadata markers as a more effective alternative.
Amendments and Ongoing Discussions
In response to these critiques, state Senator Louis Blessing, a co-sponsor of the bill, amended the proposal. The amendment redefines a watermark as ‘data embedded within an AI-generated product’ and clarifies the bill’s focus on generative AI. Despite these changes, Blessing doubts they will appease TechNet.
TechNet emphasizes that its members are actively collaborating with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to combat CSAM distribution. The group seeks to ensure that these efforts do not inadvertently result in liability for its members. They advocate for clear language that places liability on the perpetrators—those creating, viewing, promoting, or distributing CSAM.
In terms of broader protections for personal likenesses, TechNet distances its members from direct culpability, describing them as ‘intermediaries’ who cannot monitor content transmitted over their networks. The organization also opposes the provision allowing private individuals to file lawsuits for violations, fearing it could lead to excessive litigation that burdens the courts and stifles innovation. Instead, they argue that enforcement should be the sole responsibility of the Attorney General.
Current Status
Despite the amendments, Senator Blessing remains frustrated with the opposition to private lawsuits. He notes that within his party, there is strong support for measures targeting child pornography and identity fraud. However, he cautions that removing the provision for private lawsuits could significantly weaken the bill.
Blessing warns that similar scenarios have played out in other states, where bottlenecks in the Attorney General’s office have led to regulatory capture, effectively stalling enforcement efforts. ‘All the AG’s office has to do to help TechNet is to literally do nothing,’ he commented.
For updates on this developing story, follow us at aitechtrend.com.
Note: This article is inspired by content from https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/06/19/tech-group-pushes-back-on-ai-identity-fraud-restrictions/. It has been rephrased for originality. Images are credited to the original source.