What It Could Mean If You’re Facing Charges Involving AI
As just about anyone would be aware from the constant news coverage, and as we have previously covered, the laws surrounding artificial intelligence (“AI”) are rapidly evolving, at every level of government. Congress is debating federal legislation, with a push by some within the federal government to take the lead and preempt any state attempts at regulation. Illinois lawmakers just passed a new batch of state laws aimed at curtailing what it sees as the abuses made available by its proliferation, and courts are starting to see cases where AI itself is part of the alleged crime. If you’re facing criminal charges that involve AI in some way, including but not limited to generated images, deepfakes, chatbot-related conduct, or something else, it helps to understand where the law currently stands and where it’s possibly headed.
Congress Still Hasn’t Passed a Comprehensive AI law
As of this writing, there is no single federal statute generally governing AI. Instead, Congress is working on narrower bills that target specific harms purportedly created by AI. The most advanced of these currently being debated is the NO FAKES Act (which is an acronym for Nurture Originals, Foster Act, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026), which cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a unanimous voice vote last month addressing the proliferation of so-called “deepfakes” which mimic a person’s voice and/or likeness to create authentic looking fake videos. It is designed to target unauthorized generated digital replicas. The bill would create a federally-defined property right over a person’s voice and visual likeness, and would make individuals, companies, and even platforms liable for producing or distributing unauthorized AI-generated “digital replicas.” One of the companion bills introduced by one of the House’s cosponsors, Adam Schiff, who has said that the “rapid advancement of generative AI has brought incredible innovation, but it’s also unleashed a wave of unauthorized exploitation,” citing specific examples of celebrities and children being victimized by the technology. Some senators on the committee, including Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, raised First Amendment concerns during the markup, particularly around satire and political commentary in trying to find a balance between the harms and potential First Amendment violations that the bill could potentially cause. Those objections didn’t stop the bill’s advancement, but they may shape how it looks by the time it reaches a full Senate vote and possible passage.
Illinois Isn’t Waiting on Federal Government to Reform Legal Framework
With no comprehensive federal law in place, Illinois has been legislating artificial intelligence developments on its own. As of July 1, 2026, Illinois formally expanded its legal definition of cyberbullying to include AI-generated digital replicas and deepfakes. The change followed incidents like one at Lake Zurich High School, where students used AI to create sexually explicit images of classmates and the Illinois State Board of Education is also now required to issue statewide guidance on AI in schools. This issue is not confined to this one high school, as a 2024 survey found that 40% of students knew or were aware of deepfakes involving a classmate at their school, which may be underscoring the current issues since the popularity of these “tools” have only grown. However, this is a school policy change, not a new criminal statute, and that distinction matters. The underlying criminal exposure for that type of conduct was already in place, as AI-generated sexual images that appear to depict minors can already be prosecuted under Illinois’s child pornography and obscenity statutes, and creating, possessing, or distributing such images can result in serious criminal charges regardless of whether the image was depicting something “real.” Anyone should be made aware that one doesn’t not have to create these images or videos to be criminally charged, as mere possession or forwarding the images in certain instances is sufficient for someone to be held accountable under the law.
