Deceptive AI-generated replicas can cause real harms, such as leading the public to think an individual has endorsed a product or engaged in unsavory conduct. In many cases, however, the use of a replica—in news articles, commentary, art, and so on—is First Amendment protected speech. Existing law addresses many harms caused by deceptive images, balancing competing interests as needed. But Congress may consider targeted, proportionate fixes to fill in any gaps.

The NO FAKES Act, however, is neither targeted nor proportionate.

NO FAKES Act creates an expansive new federal intellectual property right that allows companies or individuals (or their heirs) to sue anyone who makes or shares an image they don’t like, or builds products and services that help others do so.

NO FAKES is an overbroad bill that is ripe for abuse.

A new analysis by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveals that many data brokers registered in one state aren’t registered in others.

A new analysis by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveals that many data brokers registered in one state aren’t registered in others.

A new analysis by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveals that many data brokers registered in one state aren’t registered in others.

05-27-2025 memorandum opinion in WilmerHale lawsuit

05-02-2025 memorandum opinion in Perkins Coie lawsuit

The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Electronic Privacy Information Center jointly submit this Statement For The Record to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding counter unmanned aerial system (“C-UAS”) authorities.

We hope Congress will take effective action on this important issue. However, it must do so in a careful manner that protects privacy and civil liberties, as well as addressing public safety concerns. We urge Congress to only extend C-UAS authorities with the limits described in this document to help ensure that counter-drone authorities are wielded responsibly.

4-25-2025 amicus brief in support of Susman Godfrey LLP

The TAKE IT DOWN Act seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content, but lacks necessary safeguards to protect free expression, user privacy, and due process. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike.

President Trump has shown just how this system can be abused, saying earlier this year in a joint address to Congress that he would personally use the takedown provisions to censor speech critical of the president. The TAKE IT DOWN Act is the wrong approach to helping people whose intimate images are shared without their consent. We can help victims of online harassment without embracing a new regime of online censorship.

Letter from more than 30 civil society groups and academics to the UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Department for Science, Innovation & Technology Secretary Peter Kyle about the law enforcement risks contained within the draft Data Use and Access Bill (DUA Bill).

EFF letter to lawyers for Flock Safety regarding a cease-and-desist sent to DeFlock.me. This letter is part of the blog post "Anti-Surveillance Mapmaker Refuses Flock Safety's Cease and Desist Demand."

Memo from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to Congress and the Trump Administration to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all Americans.

California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System misuse data provided by the California Department of Justice in response to a California Public Records Act request. This data is associated with the 2025 blog post, "California Police Misused State Databases More Than 7,000 Times in 2023."