SB 398: Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Related Offenses; criminal offenses of virtual peeping; establish

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (17)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2026

   From 0:30:04 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the substitute for SB 398 removed a broader restriction on AI-generated images, instead criminalizing intentional creation of obscene images of real people without consent. The sponsor described a gap in existing law concerning creation, said distribution was already covered, and explained an investigative exception for law enforcement and prosecutors. The sponsor said platforms would not be liable merely for hosting content, but could face charges for knowingly generating nonconsensual images. One member questioned whether the provision concerning minors clearly required a real person. Legislative counsel pointed to the definition of a minor as an individual under 18. A Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers witness requested limiting certain probation restrictions to felony violations, saying the misdemeanor provision covered less serious conduct involving young people close in age. The sponsor agreed, and members unanimously adopted that amendment. Another senator proposed a felony offense concerning publicly accessible, child-focused AI chatbots producing sexually explicit responses, citing a parent's account of two children encountering such content. A member questioned responsibility when large companies acquire chatbot businesses. The chair pointed to the requirement that an owner or operator knew or reasonably should have known. Legislative counsel corrected the amendment's references, and members adopted it unanimously. The committee unanimously approved the substitute with both amendments and sent it to Rules.

2. Senate Rules Committee, February 9, 2026

   From 0:09:02 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would create a felony for using a photograph of a real person to generate pornographic or obscene material with AI. No substantive questions or vote followed the presentation.

3. Senate Rules Committee, February 10, 2026

   From 0:13:51 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: A committee member selected SB 398 to move forward, and the chair identified its subject as wiretapping. No explanation of its provisions or substantive debate followed. The committee unanimously approved the selection together with two other bills.

4. Senate floor session, February 11, 2026 (legislative day 17)

   From 2:09:54 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The clerk described SB 398 as establishing criminal offenses for virtual peeping and prohibiting certain unauthorized or nonconsensual AI-generated images of individuals, with penalties and an exception. The Judiciary Committee recommended passage by substitute. A senator moved to table the bill, and the chair explained that the sponsor had needed to return home for an emergency. Without objection, the chair placed the bill at the bottom of the calendar. No substantive debate or passage vote occurred.

5. Senate floor session, February 20, 2026 (legislative day 22)

   From 3:20:38 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Taken from Table)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The Senate removed SB 398 from the table without objection. The sponsor said the bill would make it a felony to knowingly use AI to create sexually explicit images of a real person without that person’s consent. The sponsor described such images being used for school bullying, revenge, and reputational harm, and argued that harm begins when an image is created, not only when it is distributed. A senator asked whether the bill required malicious intent or intent to distribute, raising a hypothetical romantic partner creating an image as a gift. The sponsor said the bill required knowledge that the person had not authorized or consented to the image. In a follow-up, the sponsor said an image created with a belief that a partner had consented might be permissible and urged immediate deletion if the partner objected. The Senate adopted the committee substitute without objection and passed it 48 to 1.

6. House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 17, 2026

   From 2:24:43 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 398 would criminalize intentionally using generative AI to create obscene images of real people without consent, with stronger protections for minors and an investigative exception for law enforcement and prosecutors. The sponsor said existing law did not clearly cover creation of fabricated images. One member questioned the obscenity definition; the sponsor said all three listed tests must be met. The chair suggested placing the offense within existing peeping laws rather than creating a separate section. Members questioned a Senate-added provision covering publicly accessible AI applications used by or marketed to children. The sponsor discussed changing or to and, supported liability when providers knowingly enable harmful uses, and clarified that this provision also covered obscene chatbot responses. No change was adopted. One witness supported the bill but requested protection for non-obscene satire. A paralegal warned about unintended AI output and hacked computers and urged focusing on distribution. A Southern Center for Human Rights witness requested removing consent as a condition of the teenager misdemeanor exception, arguing that non-distributing teenagers should not face felony treatment. An OpenAI representative sought removal of the provider-liability provision or protection for providers that do not knowingly direct prohibited conduct. No vote occurred because the committee lacked a quorum.

7. House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 26, 2026

   From 0:53:15 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: With the sponsor absent, the chair proposed narrowing the bill because other legislation had already covered much of its intended content. The chair proposed deleting everything except a short provision from lines 63 through 66 and placing that provision in the existing peeping statute, with a corresponding title change. The retained provision was not read or explained in detail. One committee member clarified where the provision would appear in state law. Another asked about including both knowledge and intent requirements. The committee adopted the chair’s amendment, then adopted the second member’s amendment adding a knowledge requirement before the intent language. The committee approved the amended substitute by voice vote and sent it to the Rules Committee. No numerical tally was stated.

8. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

   From 0:46:16 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3954

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 398 would make it a felony to use someone's photograph in an artificial-intelligence program to create pornographic images or movies. The sponsor described the proposal as addressing a gap in current law as technology changes. There were no questions or recorded decisions.

9. House floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 2)

   From 2:40:29 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 4011

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said the bill created a virtual peeping offense for knowingly using artificial intelligence to generate obscene images depicting an adult without consent, addressing a gap between privacy law and new technology. Asked how conduct on a home computer could be enforced, the presenter said someone who discovered unauthorized use of their image could report it. The presenter said the bill did not ban AI, regulate social media platforms or criminalize accidental sharing, legitimate speech, art, parody or thought. A second member questioned whether exceptions for literary, artistic, political or scientific value could provide a defense for harmful images. The presenter said application would depend on the case and expressed a preference against that exception, while noting that the Senate sponsor wanted it. The House adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill, 164 to 2.

10. Senate floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 2)

    From 4:22:59 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Disagreed House Amend or Sub)

    Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor asked the Senate to reject the House substitute. The sponsor said the Senate's version addressed using artificial intelligence to generate pornography depicting real people, but the House removed provisions protecting children and returned language addressing adults only. The sponsor argued that generating such images of children should carry a serious felony penalty. The Senate disagreed to the House substitute without objection and sent it back to the House.

11. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

    From 0:29:13 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3954

    Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee placed SB 398 on the supplemental floor calendar without stated opposition. No substantive discussion occurred.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, January 14, 2026 (legislative day 3), 0:36:20
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 6, 2026 (legislative day 14), 0:37:18
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 9, 2026 (legislative day 15), 0:26:57
• Read aloud: House floor session, February 24, 2026 (legislative day 23), 0:41:14
• Read aloud: House floor session, February 25, 2026 (legislative day 24), 0:39:29
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 27, 2026 (legislative day 38, part 1), 0:38:10

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics