Loading issue research
Require consent and compensation for a real person's likeness or voice, and disclosure of synthetic commercial content, through state law and industry standards, since federal enforcement here reversed in 2025.
Verification Status
AI-researched, unverifiedLast Reviewed
Jul 4, 2026
Cited Sources
7
The specific delta between this position and the current mainstream approaches of both major parties.
The FTC's December 2025 reversal on AI-fake-content enforcement happened under the current Republican-controlled Commission, consistent with the administration's broader "don't restrict AI over potential misuse" posture. Disclosure and consent protections have instead advanced through Democratic-led state action (New York's Hochul, California's Newsom) and, more tellingly, through bipartisan federal legislation: the NO FAKES Act (protecting a real person's voice and likeness from unauthorized AI replicas) was introduced by Reps. Salazar (R) and Dean (D) with Sens. Blackburn (R) and Coons (D). That shows protecting an identifiable individual's likeness specifically draws support across party lines even when general AI-content deregulation doesn't. The entertainment union angle (SAG-AFTRA) is traditionally labor/Democratic-coalition-adjacent, but the NO FAKES Act's bipartisan sponsor list shows likeness protection isn't confined to one party's coalition. The Innovation Party's delta: treat the NO FAKES-style consent-and-compensation model as the point of cross-party agreement to build from, while pushing back specifically on the FTC's broader deregulatory retreat on commercial-content disclosure.
Turn frustration into useful pressure.
If this position misses evidence or a lived consequence, challenge it. If it holds up, help test it locally and connect it to the issues around it.