SB 594: Internet and E-mail Fraud; the criminal offense of digital identity fraud; establish

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (14)

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, March 2, 2026

   From 0:42:36 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill arose after someone used a constituent's images and story about a deceased child for fraudulent fundraising, and the platform did not remove the material until a news outlet intervened. The sponsor said the bill would establish felony digital identity fraud, punishable by one to 20 years in prison, a fine of $1,000 to $500,000, or both. According to the sponsor, platforms would have 72 hours to review and respond to a victim's complaint, with potential $5,000 civil penalties for violations. Platforms receiving a police report or other official law-enforcement communication would have 48 hours to restrict access, with potential civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. The sponsor also described a right to bring a civil lawsuit. After clarifying that the committee was considering the original version rather than a substitute, members asked no substantive questions. No witnesses were signed up, and the committee passed the bill unanimously.

2. Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 0:26:21 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 594 would create the crime of digital identity fraud, protect people from exploitation and hold online platforms accountable. A committee member asked what would trigger removal of content, how platforms would be notified and how long removal would take. The sponsor said law enforcement would send an active police report with a case number and the platform would have 48 hours to remove the content. For a citizen's complaint, the sponsor described 72-hour periods to check whether information was fraudulent and notify the victim. The sponsor said content could be restored if found not to be fraudulent, while emphasizing the removal requirement during an active police investigation. The sponsor also said they were working with TikTok. The committee unanimously included the bill in the floor-calendar package.

3. Senate floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, part 1)

   From 7:10:34 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Tabled)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 594 arose from a constituent's difficulty removing fraudulent fundraising posts that used images of a deceased infant. The sponsor said neither the family nor law enforcement initially secured removal, while news coverage eventually did. The sponsor described a new felony for using someone's images, videos or identifying information online to deceive others for financial gain or another unlawful purpose. According to the sponsor, platforms would have 72 hours, excluding weekends, to evaluate a victim's report and 48 hours, excluding weekends, to restrict access after receiving a qualifying Georgia police report. The sponsor said violations could bring a $50,000 civil fine per incident, enforcement by prosecutors or the attorney general, and a lawsuit by the victim. No questions or opposing speeches followed. The Senate passed the bill, 50 to 1.

4. House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 11, 2026

   From 0:34:23 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor described a constituent whose deceased child's photographs were used for fraudulent fundraising, saying removal occurred only after news media intervened. The sponsor said the bill would create felony digital identity fraud and a private right to sue. Platforms would have 72 hours, excluding weekends, to respond to a victim's request, with a possible $5,000 penalty, and 48 hours, excluding weekends, to remove content after receiving a qualifying police report, with a $50,000-per-incident penalty. One member questioned whether platform penalties conflicted with federal Section 230 protections and suggested a federal-law safeguard. The chair questioned delivery of police reports, overseas offenders and immediate reposting. The sponsor acknowledged those difficulties and offered to work on changes. Members also questioned whether language about deception could reach anonymous accounts, fake profiles or political parody. The sponsor said the intended target was impersonation using another person's information to defraud people. Another member supported acting despite possible court challenges. Members suggested clearer definitions, protection for people who merely repost content, and less severe initial penalties. No amendment was adopted. The chair requested further work with the sponsor before another discussion, and no vote occurred.

5. House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 17, 2026

   From 0:37:59 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would create a felony for digital identity fraud, citing a constituent whose deceased baby’s images were used for fraudulent fundraising. The sponsor said platforms would have 72 hours to review victims’ reports and restrict content after receiving law enforcement reports, with potential $50,000 civil fines sought by prosecutors or the attorney general. The substitute extended the platform deadline from 48 to 72 hours, removed a private right to sue and revised reporting procedures following work with TikTok. Members questioned overseas enforcement, police access to reporting portals, reposts and political speech. A Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council witness said existing venue rules and training would support enforcement, and the bill would provide a more targeted tool than current law. The witness also acknowledged that falsely implying a political endorsement could fall within the bill. Members suggested limiting it to fraudulent fundraising or excluding elections. The sponsor suggested requiring both harm and fraud, but the witness cautioned that this would require proving both. Another member supported establishing an offense now and refining it later. No vote occurred. The sponsor agreed to work with the chair on narrower language and an election exception before the next meeting.

6. House Rules Committee, March 25, 2026

   From 0:33:52 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3209

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The bill's sponsor said SB 594 would create an offense of digital identity fraud so prosecutors could pursue people who steal someone's identity online and raise money using that person's name. There were no questions, and the committee took no vote.

7. House floor session, March 25, 2026 (legislative day 37, PM)

   From 2:22:36 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3220

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said the Rules Committee substitute combined campaign AI disclosures, felony digital impersonation intended to deceive, harm or defraud, and penalties for distributing or soliciting AI-generated child sexual material or possessing it for distribution. The presenter said the child-material penalty was one to 15 years, with reporting to the GBI and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Members questioned the election provisions' 90-day window, possible ballot consequences and partisan enforcement. The presenter defended the window as protecting speech and described election board investigation followed by referral for prosecution, without answering the ballot-removal question directly. A question about omitted platform takedown and lawsuit provisions was deferred. The presenter clarified that election violations and child exploitation had separate enforcement paths, and that disclosed AI campaign advertisements remained permitted. Another supporter cited impersonation scams and risks to older residents. An opponent supported most provisions but argued that deceptive content posted before the 90-day window could remain influential throughout an election. Other members questioned combining the subjects. The House adopted the Rules Committee substitute and passed the bill, 159-6.

8. House Rules Committee, March 25, 2026

   From 0:41:20 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3209

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter described three parts of the substitute: a preamble about AI's benefits and harms, provisions on AI-generated election content, and provisions making it a crime to generate obscene images of children using AI. The presenter said the election-content language had been narrowed to apply only to paid political staff of campaign committees. The presenter argued that AI-generated sexual images of children could lead to exploitation involving actual children. No questions were asked. The committee approved substitute LC64-0122S without voiced opposition and later placed it on the supplemental calendar without voiced opposition.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 26, 2026 (legislative day 25), 0:23:38
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 3, 2026 (legislative day 26), 0:33:52
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 4, 2026 (legislative day 27), 0:51:54
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 9, 2026 (legislative day 29), 1:03:35
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 10, 2026 (legislative day 30), 0:47:33
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 19, 2026 (legislative day 34), 0:37:48

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics