Lawmakers are hoping to make Colorado the 38th state in the nation to impose criminal and civil penalties for using artificial intelligence to create sexually explicit images.

Senate Bill 288 creates a cause of action against someone who publishes or threatens to publish an AI-generated intimate image of people without their consent and updates the state’s definition of “sexually exploitative material” to include AI-generated child pornography.

The bill unanimously passed the Senate last week. This week, the House is debating the bill, with the measure passing through a second reading Monday, with a third vote expected on Tuesday.

The measure also classifies the creation of AI-generated sexually explicit imagery without an individual’s consent as a Class 1 misdemeanor or a Class 6 felony if it affected “the conduct of an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding of a governmental agency,” such as an election, or if it posed an “imminent and serious threat” to the victim’s safety.

According to Titone, 37 states have passed legislation on AI-generated pornography, which she called a “problem that is a growing concern in our community and across the country.”

“When this kind of pornography is created, it can have lasting mental health effects,” she added. “We’ve seen some people commit suicide from these images being shown and the humiliation. Even though it is not a real image of them, it is still so realistic with this AI that it really hurts people very intimately. AI is a very evolving technology, and we need to try to adapt our statutes to take care of these issues as they come.”

Soper said the bill closes a gap in a bill passed last session on “revenge porn” that allowed perpetrators to use AI to generate sexually explicit images of their victims.

Reps. Lorena Garcia, D-Unincorporated Adams County, and Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins, sought to strike an amendment introduced to the bill during Saturday’s Judiciary Committee hearing that absolves the artificial intelligence platforms that produce the imagery from any liability.

“If a company’s software is being used to generate pornographic materials of children, that company should face some liability,” said Zokaie. “They do have the ability to block those things from happening, and if we do not hold them liable if their software is being used to generate this type of material, I worry that we don’t provide the incentive for them to put in the safeguards necessary to keep this from happening.”

According to Soper, the language in the bill mirrors that of a 2024 bill regulating the use of “deepfakes” in election campaign materials.

“It’s not the provider of technology who we’re wanting to hold responsible. It’s the person who creates the content that we want to hold criminally and civilly liable under this particular bill,” he said. “It’s important that we don’t open the floodgates of litigation right away, especially to an industry that is still developing and taking off.”

Legislators on both sides of the aisle expressed worries about the bill’s quick turnaround from the Senate to the House and the fact that the Judiciary Committee was only able to spend two hours on it on Saturday afternoon because the full House had to attend to business on the floor.

Rep. Michael Carter, D-Aurora, a member of the Judiciary Committee, called the bill “one of the biggest expansions” to Colorado’s criminal justice powers.

“I guarantee you that there is information that we are opening up with this bill that we have not deliberated about,” he said, requesting that it be brought back to the judiciary panel.

Zokaie, who also serves on the committee, agreed, as did Republican Reps. Stephanie Luck of Penrose and Ken DeGraaf of Colorado Springs.

Zokaie said she still has questions about the bill she’d like answered.

“With bills as big as this one, typically members of Judiciary are having conversations for a long time before we are actually able to deliberate in committee itself, and unfortunately we did not get much information prior to committee hearing,” she said. “It does feel that we have not looked through this bill to the extent that we need to.”