Ohio House Technology and Innovation Committee - 6-2-2026

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Chair Claggett?

Vice Chair Workman? Here. Ranking Member Mohammed? Representative Bryant Bailey? Here. Representative Cockley? Here. Representative Demetrio is excused. Representative Ferguson? Here. Representative Hall? Here. Representative Holmes? Here. Representative Ty Matthews is checked in. Representative McClain is excused. Representative Miller is excused. Representative White is excused.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to amend amendments AM 1361027-1 with amendment AM 1362614.

Yes. The amendment is a technical amendment correcting a cross-reference error made in AM 1361027-1.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will say before I start, I like this very open, you know, explaining it. We do it all the time, actually, in this committee. It's kind of a unique way of thinking about it. Very good. And we have quizzes, Chairman.

I'm sorry?

We have quizzes, too. That's true. I give them tests and all kinds of oddball things. Sounds good. Very good. All right. Chair Claggett, Vice Chair Workman, Ranking Member Muhammad, and members of the House Technology and Innovation Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 163, who I proudly join sponsor with Senator Johnson. Senate Bill 163 is not a new concept to this legislature. This legislation was previously introduced as Senate Bill 217 in the 135th General Assembly. This AI technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. It is critical that Ohio's laws evolve with it to protect Ohioans from exploitation, fraud, and abuse. AI has the potential to transform nearly every aspect of modern life. It can improve efficiency, expand educational opportunities, and drive innovation across countless industries. However, alongside those benefits comes a growing capacity for misuse. AI systems can now generate highly realistic images, videos, and audio capable of mimicking real people, fabricating events, and deceiving the public in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago. And based on me sitting here and you guys hearing about 185, it sounds like you're well-versed in this as it is. One of the most alarming uses of this technology is the creation of AI-generated child sex abuse material. Under current Ohio law, prosecution often depends on proving that an actual child was photographed or depicted. As AI-generated content becomes more advanced, perpetrators are increasingly exploiting gaps in existing statutes by creating fabricated yet realistic depictions of minors engaged in obscene or sexually explicit conduct. SB 163 closes those gaps. The bill modernizes Ohio law by prohibiting obscene material and sexually oriented material involving an artificially generated depiction of a minor or a depiction of a purported minor. This ensures that predators cannot evade accountability simply because the material was generated by artificial intelligence instead of a camera. Senate Bill 163 also amends Ohio law regarding nudity-oriented material involving minors and impaired persons, ensuring that AI-generated depictions are treated consistently with existing protections already found in Ohio criminal statutes. In addition to protecting children, SB 163 addresses the growing threat of AI-enabled fraud and impersonation, also known as deepfakes. The bill establishes protections against the misuse of a replica of a person's persona, which includes fabricated or modified versions of an individual's voice, image, photograph, likeness, or distinctive appearance created through AI or other digital means. Under this legislation, it would be illegal to knowingly use a replica of another person's persona to, one, defraud another individual, two, induce someone to make financial decisions or extend credit, three, damage a person's or entity's reputation, four, depict an individual without consent in obscene or sexually explicit material, or five, facilitate crimes such as child entastement or offenses involving minors. These provisions are intended to address the increasing prevalence of AI-generated scams, deepfake pornography, voice cloning, and identity fraud that target both adults and children. The bill also includes consumer transparency requirements for generative AI systems. That's a key idea here. Covered providers of publicly accessible generative AI systems would be required to place watermarks on AI-generated images and videos and include provenance data identifying the origin of the content. Additionally, the bill prohibits knowingly removing those watermarks or falsely representing AI content as authentic with the intent to deceive others These safeguards are designed to promote transparency and help Ohioans distinguish authentic content from fabricated media in an increasingly digital world Importantly, Senate Bill 163 aims to balance innovation with accountability. One provision that caused significant debate in the Senate was the bill's private right of action. As introduced, there were concerns raised about how to ensure Ohioans who are harmed by deceptive AI-generated content have a relevant avenue for relief, while also preventing unnecessary or burdensome litigation against legitimate technology providers and businesses operating in good faith. Under the bill as passed by the Senate, an individual who is harmed by violations related to watermarking, deceptive AI-generated content, or unauthorized replica usage must first file a complaint with the Ohio Attorney General. If the Attorney General declines to bring an enforcement action within six months, the individual may then pursue a civil action for damages. This approach preserves accountability and provides victims with a path to seek relief, while also ensuring that the Attorney General serves as an initial gatekeeper to prevent frivolous claims and encourage consistent enforcement statewide. Consequently, the misuse of AI poses real and growing threats to privacy, safety, public trust, and the protection of vulnerable individuals. Ohio has an opportunity to take proactive steps to address these harms before they become even more prevalent throughout the state. Thank you for your consideration of Senate Bill 163. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will simply say this. Yes, it does require a watermark for images and videos for publicly accessible generative AI. The promodons data itself, sort of the metadata, wouldn't obviously be visible. And, yes, if you are a company that is, you know, allowing for publicly – excuse me, offering publicly accessible generative AI, you may be sued based on the shot clock system that we have in the bill. But the thing is with this, and this is sort of a misnomer, this is actually a protection mechanism for businesses. The idea is that if you can simply say, look, we are complying with the law, we are, you know, we can demonstrate that the software is doing this as it should, you're off the hook. You're not getting sued for something like that. Meanwhile, if an image can be defined or, excuse me, if an image or a video is found to have, like, been generated from this, but somewhere, somehow it got taken off after the fact, the business is now off the hook. But now you have to find that person. And to your point, it's going to be difficult to do something like that. To what extent they can find the actual person that did that, I imagine there's some degree of sophistication within the AG's office. they can go after that as well as potentially the trial bar. But again, the business is off the hook for something like that. That is actually a key point. And if I may.

First of all, delighted to be a joint sponsor on this. And it's a very simple concept to protect people. Very complicated in the sausage making that went into getting us to this point today. And I really commend my joint sponsor for the work he did on this. He was like the lightning rod on most of this, so you kind of see it up there.

But I also see this as a first step. There's no one bill ever going to take care of the vast problem that we have here. AI is a wonderful concept that could do wonderful things for human beings, and especially our economy and our communities. But as with all really good, potentially good things, this could be turned to very evil purposes. Every time. And so that's why I think you guys have, in the structure of what you're trying to do, I get that.

Through to the chairman. So every pixel on the Internet will not come from a publicly accessible generative AI system. So if you've, you know, just drawn something up in paint, you don't have to have a watermark for this. So this doesn't affect literally every image.

Hi, Mr. Chairman. If the bad actors are going to use the devious nature of the intent of this bill to simply go around it in some fashion so that they don't watermark it in the way that you want, then that creates the opportunity then to do criminal activity. because the watermark is the self-incrimination piece of this that you're trying to get to identify the bad actor. But they won't identify themselves, will they?

But to the extent that somebody is being investigated, let's say that they were using publicly accessible generative AI to generate pornographic images and things like that, and they're collecting these on their computer. I would say the people that are doing that sort of thing aren't exactly intelligent people to begin with. There's going to be some form of trail with this, and I don't think all of them are that sophisticated.

I'm sure, just the same way that people fall through the cracks today. But, again, that watermarking piece, it's, again, sort of a misnomer in the sense that it's like, oh, yeah, of course these people can remove it. But it's also protecting the legitimate businesses who say, yep, I am going to put this in the software to say here's the watermark, and they're good.

You know, if it's coming from a publicly generated AI system, sure. I don't think there's anything unreasonable for having a small, almost imperceptible watermark. But again, if you're just using any other software other than generative AI and you take that photo, you're not under that limitation.

Yes.

Thank you, Senators, for the legislation before us today. This is very welcome and extremely timely. I'm particularly interested in the private cause of action. I appreciate that perspective and that move. I might have a follow-up as well, but have you had conversations with the Attorney General on this, and what is the general consensus in that office?

Follow-up, Chair?

Thank you. So I imagine that this is a very frequent issue that's happening among our youth today, especially I have heard many cases in my district where this is happening in the school systems. So I'm wondering if you have any protections in place for the victims who are reporting these situations.

If I may add, Chairman.

Through the chairman to the vice chairwoman. You know, I'd just like to add here, in case we don't get a chance, that this isn't just for children. It also very much goes toward the elderly. And in my Senate floor speech before this was passed, I mentioned a case where my mother, who's now 89, but it was a couple years ago, has a very small Facebook footprint, almost nothing. But from that, someone was able to target her by phone, and she doesn't have a cell phone, so it's a landline. Imagine this. And so she's got this call coming in, and it is the exact voice of her granddaughter. Right. Exact. And, you know, and Mom was just terrified. And she wouldn't tell anybody because they had cleverly made it so she was afraid to tell anybody. You know, next thing you know, she's out a couple thousand dollars, which she doesn't have. That's her entire Social Security check. So this is something that's very urgent, and we're certainly going to appreciate some fine-tuning here. But again, I want to say, when we talk about the bad things that bad people can do, we can never get ahead of those rascals. They're always going to be ahead of us. This is a first step and an important step, and I hope we can make it a better bill over here in the House. And quickly, because, boy, we don't have much time left to get things done in this General Assembly.

Through the chairman to the vice chairwoman, I don't believe that is in the bill currently, but, hey, this is the House committee. You know, the old saying goes, the bill is no longer your bill once it's in committee. So if this is something you want to work on, I'm happy to do that and see where it goes from there. And I will add, thank you for your questioning and indulgence in this committee, and I apologize for going after you Senate side for one of your bills. I was crotchety that day. But thank you for that question. I had nothing to do with that.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the chairman to the representative, I mean, look, it's what you guys want to make of it at this point. You know, the provenance data itself, you know, who created it, how it was created, what platform, that's all hidden in the metadata. I mean, it could be as big or small as you want for this. But I do think to some degree, you know, having something that's somewhat small, I mean, made a little more sense and I think made folks a little more comfortable versus having, you know, having big red letters or something like all the way across the image. And it's like – but no, I'm happy to work with you on that one.

Through the chairman to the representative, I believe this bill would address that. I mean, if they used publicly accessible generative AI to do something like that, then yes, it would have to have a watermark or something to that effect displaying it. And, you know, you aren't the only person to have brought this to me. There have been senators that have mentioned that, and I'm like, what are you guys talking about? And then you start seeing it, what you and some of these other folks have gone through, and you're like, oh, my God, that really is a thing. But I do think that the legislation would cover your particular situation.

To the chairman. So prosecute but also mitigate I don think that we could ever really stop a lot of this behavior with a particular bill But you know for the bad actors you know the folks that are doing this this is a tool for the AG office This is a tool for the courts and attorneys generally to go after the bad actors. I don't think anybody actually disputes, or at least we didn't see opponents on the, you know, the side of going after the child sex abuse material or the identity fraud. The watermarking was a different story. Obviously, we did have businesses coming out in opposition to that sort of thing because they didn't want to be held accountable.

Chairman, I do understand what you're saying on that. But, like, the issue is that, like, I'm trying to think, and I do like that you used the word corollary there, a closely related idea. That's a good one. The issue, I think, is with this is that, you know, we have laws on the books right now saying it is illegal to murder somebody. The thing is people still do that. People are still going to do this, whether we do 163 or not, amend it, you know, do a number of the bills that you guys have in this committee today. The idea is to mitigate this as much as we possibly can without causing greater harms.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we're conflating a couple of things here. The watermarking part of it is really more of a software vendor business-centric thing. We know that. It's still a legal requirement in this bill to do that, but it did not stop the activity.

That's why I asked you first.

So, yes, Mr. Chairman. But, again, I do recognize that, like, if we were to pass this today, for example, it wouldn't entirely as a practical matter stop the issue. And for what it's worth, thinking of, like, based on what I'm hearing about 185 and where you seem to be going with it to some degree, there is – I kind of feel like a small – like, the intersection between those two bills is relatively small. I mean, they're – I don't want to say one is a subset or a superset of the other, but they're very similar in concept.

I'd have to think about that a little more.

To the chairman, it is not sanctioning the activity that is in the bill. Maybe the words would be inadvertent.

If I could just –

As Senator Steve Huffman would say, I'd like to chime in. So the only way to stop this activity would be to remove the incentives to do it.

To remove the incentives to do it, in my opinion, is absolutely impossible. And even then, if you remove the incentives to do it, someone might just out of the blue do it. So are you going to stomp this out completely? Absolutely not.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senators, for this bill. I certainly understand where you guys are going with this bill and the intent behind it. Just on a broader scale, I guess, because a lot of these bills are focusing on the bad actors, the consumers. but on a broader scale, and this may not be something that you can answer, but on a broader scale, what are we doing to target the software companies that are creating the capability to even do this? Because there's apps you can download right now to not only generate these fake images, fake AI, but also apps that will allow you to take off some of these watermarks. So I guess on a broader scale, how are we targeting the companies and creating this ability for the bad actors? Yes.

All right. Probably last question. I'll let you go for today. I've known to call people like you back, so we'll see. All right. Subpoena power. Yeah. Well, not that serious. But you can see I want to beat this to death because what we're doing in this era is extremely important precedent setting. And I don't want to foul this up. All right. Disregard everything we've talked about thus far. I want to ask you a separate yet obviously connected piece. Please don't think about it. Just give me your off-the-top head response. Is it time to update Ohio's defamation laws? Yes or no? Quick. I don't want you to think about it.

You're going to get your lawyer hat on.

Oh, yes. Quickly. I will tell you that. Mr. Saucer, the cup is boiling.

I want you to think about that. That's your homework. I got it.

All right. Committee, are you satisfied that we have beaten us to death today? All right. Thank you. Seriously, I want to think about that. Come see me or I'll come see you. 1950s defamation laws in Ohio. We don't live in 1950 anymore.

You got it. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you coming to our committee today. I appreciate that very much. This then concludes the first hearing of 10,000 more to come of Senate Bill 163. I'm kidding. All right. Seeing no other business, this concludes the House Technology Innovation Committee. We are adjourned.