PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10025 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10025 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10025 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10025 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Preventing Abuse of Digital Replicas Act would change certain trademark lawsuits involving qualifying computer-generated copies of living people’s images, voices, or likenesses. In claims under section 43(a)(1)(A) involving those copies used on or in connection with goods, services, or goods containers, a plaintiff could expressly invoke a rebuttable presumption in a pleading: the court would start by assuming likely confusion about association, origin, sponsorship, or approval, but that assumption could be challenged. A plaintiff who invokes it generally could not seek relief under other laws for the same digital-replica use, subject to specified exceptions. The presumption would be unavailable for indirect-liability claims, uses in expressive works or their promotion, and uses otherwise protected by the First Amendment.
This Act may be cited as the Preventing Abuse of Digital Replicas Act.
the term digital replica means a computer-generated representation that is identical to, or substantially indistinguishable from, an identifying characteristic of a subject person, who at the time of the use of the representation is a living individual human being, where— (i) the identifying characteristic is an image, voice, or likeness of the subject person, which is distinctive to the subject person such that the use of such characteristic is likely to be associated with the subject person and no other person by reasonable and ordinary participants in the relevant industry or market; and (ii) based on the representation itself, it is apparent to reasonable and ordinary participants in the relevant industry or market that the purpose of the representation, in whole or in part, was to duplicate the identifying characteristic of the subject person
In a civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the court shall apply a rebuttable presumption that the use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistakes, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, if— (A) the claim asserted under paragraph (1)(A) is for a use of a digital replica by a person on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods; and (B) the person bringing the civil action expressly invokes the rebuttable presumption in a pleading.
With the exception of relief sought under sections 32 and 43(c) of this Act, section 501 of title 17, and section 271 of title 35, a person may not seek relief under any other provision of Federal, State, local, or municipal law for any use of a digital replica for which the person files a civil action asserting liability under this section and expressly invokes the rebuttable presumption in paragraph (4) in a pleading.
The rebuttable presumption in paragraph (4) shall not be available in a civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) for the use of a digital replica on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods— (A) for any claim asserted under paragraph (1)(A) for indirect liability; (B) if the use is in an expressive work or in promotional material for that expressive work; or (C) if the use is otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2 presents Congress’s proposed findings that artificial intelligence offers opportunities but that unauthorized digital replicas can harm individuals and mislead consumers. It also states that some individuals have struggled to protect their rights under existing trademark law. These are the bill’s stated reasons for the changes, not demonstrated effects of the proposal.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, including generative AI technology, represent an important opportunity for continued technological leadership by the United States in a critical and emerging technology area.
Abusive use of an unauthorized digital replica to fraudulently ascribe endorsement or other statements to a person without his or her knowledge or consent can cause tremendous distress and inflict serious harm on that person as well as his or her reputation, dignity, and livelihood.
False endorsements, advertisements, or other commercial speech or promotion using unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas can also cause substantial confusion and harm to consumers
Some individuals have encountered difficulties in some jurisdictions in protecting their rights via section 43, such as due to their lack of general fame or their lack of the resources necessary to gather sufficient evidence of consumer confusion, as may be required under the case law of certain jurisdictions.
The bill would express Congress’s view that trademark law should retain its historical scope, prevent improper recapture of works in the public domain, and avoid conflicts with copyright law governing creative expression. This statement includes films depicting historical figures and music sampling existing audio.
It is the sense of Congress that the Trademark Act of 1946 should remain constrained to its historical scope, prevent the improper recapture of works in the public domain, and avoid conflicting with copyright laws that govern primarily creative expression, including when aided by AI technology such as in films depicting historical figures or music that samples preexisting audio.
A qualifying digital replica would have to be a computer-generated representation identical to, or substantially indistinguishable from, an identifying feature of an individual person who is alive when the representation is used.
the term digital replica means a computer-generated representation that is identical to, or substantially indistinguishable from, an identifying characteristic of a subject person, who at the time of the use of the representation is a living individual human being
The copied feature would have to be an image, voice, or likeness distinctive enough that reasonable and ordinary participants in the relevant industry or market would likely associate it with that person alone. The representation itself would also have to make apparent to those participants that duplicating the feature was at least part of its purpose. The relevant industry or market would be that for the goods or services involved in the lawsuit.
the identifying characteristic is an image, voice, or likeness of the subject person, which is distinctive to the subject person such that the use of such characteristic is likely to be associated with the subject person and no other person by reasonable and ordinary participants in the relevant industry or market
based on the representation itself, it is apparent to reasonable and ordinary participants in the relevant industry or market that the purpose of the representation, in whole or in part, was to duplicate the identifying characteristic of the subject person
the term relevant industry or market means the industry or market for the goods or services that are the subject of the civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
In a lawsuit under section 43(a)(1)(A), a court would have to apply a rebuttable presumption of likely confusion about association, origin, sponsorship, or approval when the claim concerns a qualifying digital replica used on or in connection with goods, services, or a goods container and the plaintiff expressly invokes the presumption in a pleading, subject to the bill’s exclusions. Invoking the presumption would be optional. Because it is rebuttable, it could be challenged.
In a civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the court shall apply a rebuttable presumption that the use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistakes, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, if— (A) the claim asserted under paragraph (1)(A) is for a use of a digital replica by a person on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods; and (B) the person bringing the civil action expressly invokes the rebuttable presumption in a pleading.
The rebuttable presumption in paragraph (4) shall not be available in a civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) for the use of a digital replica on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods— (A) for any claim asserted under paragraph (1)(A) for indirect liability; (B) if the use is in an expressive work or in promotional material for that expressive work; or (C) if the use is otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The presumption would be unavailable for indirect-liability claims. It would also be unavailable for uses in expressive works, promotional material for those works, or uses otherwise protected by the First Amendment. These exceptions concern access to the presumption.
The rebuttable presumption in paragraph (4) shall not be available in a civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) for the use of a digital replica on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods— (A) for any claim asserted under paragraph (1)(A) for indirect liability; (B) if the use is in an expressive work or in promotional material for that expressive work; or (C) if the use is otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
A person who files a lawsuit asserting liability under the section and chooses to expressly invoke the presumption would generally be barred from seeking relief under other federal, state, local, or municipal laws for the same digital-replica use. The bill would except relief sought under Trademark Act sections 32 and 43(c), title 17 section 501, and title 35 section 271. Those provisions are not reproduced in the supplied sources, so their full scope cannot be established here.
With the exception of relief sought under sections 32 and 43(c) of this Act, section 501 of title 17, and section 271 of title 35, a person may not seek relief under any other provision of Federal, State, local, or municipal law for any use of a digital replica for which the person files a civil action asserting liability under this section and expressly invokes the rebuttable presumption in paragraph (4) in a pleading.
The amended subsection would expressly count as a law concerning intellectual property for purposes of Communications Act section 230(e). The source does not reproduce section 230(e), so it does not supply the full context for this classification’s effect.
This subsection shall be considered a law pertaining to intellectual property for the purposes of section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230).
The bill directs that its provisions and amendments must not be interpreted to narrow the scope of Trademark Act section 43 as it existed before enactment.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, may be construed so as to limit the scope of section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) as such section existed prior to the enactment of this Act.
The changes would apply only if both the section 43(a) lawsuit and the digital-replica use on or in connection with goods, services, or a goods container occur after enactment. The text supplies no fixed calendar start date.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply only to a civil action— (1) brought pursuant to section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) for the use of a digital replica on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, after the date of the enactment of this Act.
If a provision or its application to a person or circumstance were held invalid, the rest of the Act and that provision’s application to other people or circumstances would remain unaffected.
If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on August 3, 2026. This snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T13:48:30Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark disclosures are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment warranting a targeted-benefit finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI