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."

Sent 9/17/2024. 

Courts across the country have confirmed that it is nearly impossible to impose online age-verification requirements without violating internet users’ First Amendment rights. Courts are blocking different iterations of these so-called “child safety” proposals enacted by states.

Deceptive AI-generated replicas raise concerns for performers and other public figures, who receive compensation for certain uses of their likenesses, such as use in advertising. In a vast array of cases, however, use of other people’s images—in news articles, commentary, creative art, and elsewhere—is First Amendment protected speech of the user or publisher of the image.

These uses are part of the free flow of information in everyday American life, and do not require payment or even permission. While existing law addresses most of these image harms, Congress should consider narrowly targeted fixes for gaps where images are abused.

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

Introduced by Sens. Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar and Tillis, NO FAKES Act grants a brand-new federal intellectual property right to allow companies or individuals to sue anyone who makes or uses an image of them that they don’t like, AI-generated or not. It even allows a person’s heirs to sue, going out 70 years.

21-cv-01362

Opinion and Order

District Judge Colm Connolly

"I have decided to refer the attorneys of record for the plaintiffs in these cases
to the disciplinary counsel of their respective bars. I have also determined it
necessary to refer to the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law
Committee certain attorneys associated with the patent monetization firm IP Edge
LLC (IP Edge) and its affiliate Mavexar LLC (Mavexar) for the roles they played
in connection with these cases. I have determined as well that a referral of these
matters to the United States Department of Justice and the United States Patent &
Trademark Office (PTO) for further inquiry is warranted. I explain in this
Memorandum Opinion why I made these decisions." 

JOINT STATEMENT by Access Now, ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression (ARTICLE 19) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in in response to Commissioner Breton's letter addressed to X.

Docket No. PTO-P-2023-0048

Last updated: Jan 6, 2026

This dataset is associated with the EFF reports, "Hundreds of Tech Companies Want to Cash In on Homeland Security Funding. Here's Who They Are and What They're Selling" and "The Homeland Security Spending Trail: How to Follow the Money Through U.S. Government Databases." It is also available as a Google Sheet (Google's Privacy Policy applies).

06-26-2024 EFF et al amicus brief in TikTok v Garland

2024 Cyberlaw Trivia Questions & Answers

Data compiled from 80 California Public Records Act requests filed with law enforcement agencies using automated license plate readers. The data shows how many detections and hot-list hits were recorded, primarily using Motorola Solutions/Vigilant Solutions systems, for the years 2021-2022.