Relating to civil liability for online impersonation.
ModeratePlan for compliance
Low Cost
Effective:2025-06-20
Enforcing Agencies
Texas Civil Courts (Private Right of Action)
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date:June 20, 2025 (Due to supermajority vote, this is effective immediately upon enactment, superseding the standard September 1 date).
Compliance Deadline:Immediate. Organizations must operate as if liability exists now. There is no grace period for existing content that causes harm after this date.
Agency Rulemaking:None. This statute is self-executing and enforced through civil litigation in state courts. Do not wait for agency guidance; case law will define the boundaries.
Immediate Action Plan
Conduct a "Deepfake Audit" of all active social media ads and posts immediately; scrub any unverified "look-alike" content.
Update Model Releases to specifically address AI and digital simulation rights.
Secure Insurance Riders that cover defense costs for intentional acts/impersonation claims.
Prepare TRO Templates with outside counsel to rapidly seek injunctive relief if your company or executives are victims of impersonation.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Master Services Agreements (MSAs): Update agreements with marketing agencies and content creators. Require specific indemnification for claims arising under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 98C.
Model Releases: Revise standard releases to explicitly consent to "digital replicas," "AI-generated variations," and "online impersonation." Standard "likeness" clauses may be insufficient for deepfake defenses.
Employment Agreements: Update social media policies to prohibit employees from creating impersonation content on company time or accounts to mitigate vicarious liability.
Hiring/Training
AI Protocols: Implement "Human-in-the-Loop" review for all AI-generated marketing materials. Staff must verify that synthetic faces do not accidentally resemble real individuals ("virtually indistinguishable").
Content Moderation: Train social media teams on the distinction between protected "parody" and actionable "impersonation."
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Provenance Logs: Maintain audit trails for content creation. In the event of a lawsuit, you must be able to prove an image was synthetically generated or licensed, rather than an unauthorized appropriation of a plaintiff's likeness.
Parental Consent: If using User-Generated Content (UGC) featuring minors, implement strict verification for parental consent, as the statute creates specific liabilities regarding minors.
Fees & Costs
Insurance Review: Contact brokers immediately. Liability under this statute requires "intent," which is often excluded from General Liability policies. Verify if Media Liability or Cyber riders cover defense costs for intentional torts.
Litigation Reserves: The "prevailing party" fee-shifting provision means if you sue to stop an impersonator and lose (e.g., they prove parody), you pay their legal fees.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
"Virtually Indistinguishable": The law applies if content appears authentic to a "reasonable person." This is a subjective standard that will vary by jury. Conservative content approval is required until case law establishes a precedent.
The Satire Defense: While satire and parody are exemptions, they are *affirmative defenses*. This means you can still be sued and must incur legal costs to prove the defense in court.
Audio vs. Visual: The definition of "Online Impersonation" relies on "visual material" but includes "voice." It is legally ambiguous whether an audio-only deepfake (without accompanying visuals) triggers liability. Assume it does.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
The rise of online impersonationcommonly known as "catfishing"has become a pervasive and deeply damaging form of digital fraud across Texas and the nation. According to public Federal Trade Commission data for 2024, romance scams alone resulted in $81 million in losses in Texas, often perpetrated by individuals who fabricate identities to gain victims' trust and exploit them both financially and emotionally. Advances in technology, including artificial intelligence, have made it increasingly easy to create convincing fake profiles that use an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness through social media without the individual's consentmaking them difficult to detect. The bill author has informed the committee that while the Penal Code criminalizes certain forms of online impersonation, there is currently no clear civil remedy for victims to seek restitution, removal of harmful content, or injunctive relief. The bill author has also informed the committee that many victims experience severe emotional distress and reputational damage when their photographs or personal identifiers are used without consent and that this legal gap leaves victims without meaningful recourse, particularly in cases where criminal enforcement is unavailable or impractical. H.B. 783 seeks to address this issue by creating a civil cause of action for individuals harmed by online impersonation through the use of a person's name, image, signature, voice, or likeness through social media or other digital means, without consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
H.B. 783 amends the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to make a person liable to another person injured by the person's online impersonation if the person knowingly used the online impersonation to create a false identity with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten the injured person. The liability does not apply to a law enforcement agency or a law enforcement agency employee acting within the scope of employment in investigating Internet crimes or to a person for an online impersonation of which the sole purpose is satire or parody. The bill does the following with respect to a claimant who prevails in an action relating to liability for online impersonation:
·requires the claimant to be awarded actual damages, including expenditures made by the claimant related to counseling, identity theft, or libel;
·provides for the consideration of the defendant's profits attributable to the defendant's online impersonation of the claimant in the computation of actual damages; and
·authorizes the claimant, in addition to the award for actual damages, to recover exemplary damages of not less than $500.
H.B. 783 requires the court to award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any action relating to online impersonation. The bill authorizes the court, on the motion of a claimant depicted in the defendant's online impersonation, to issue a temporary restraining order or a temporary or permanent injunction to restrain and prevent the online impersonation of the claimant. The cause of action created by the bill's provisions is cumulative of any other remedy provided by common law or statute. The bill establishes that its provisions may not be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service as defined by the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 for content provided by another person.
H.B. 783 defines the following terms for purposes of the bill's provisions:
·"online impersonation" as a person's use of an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness through social media without that individual's consent or if the individual is a minor, the consent of that individual's parent, legal guardian, or managing conservator;
·"photograph" includes any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual in which the individual is readily identifiable;
·"readily identifiable" as identifiable using only the naked eye to reasonably determine the identity of an individual in a photograph; and
·"social media" as a form of electronic communication through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.
Honorable Jeff Leach, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB783 by Lalani (Relating to civil liability for online impersonation.), As Introduced
The fiscal implications of the bill cannot be determined due to the number of new cases that would arise from the provisions of the bill being unknown.
The bill would amend the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to create a new cause of action that prohibits a person from impersonating another person online in certain circumstances.
The bill would allow injured parties to seek injunctive relief, as well as actual and exemplary damages, and to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fee, if the injured party prevails.
According to the Office of Court Administration, the fiscal implications cannot be determined because the number of new cases that would arise from the provisions of the bill are unknown.
Local Government Impact
The fiscal implications of the bill cannot be determined at this time.
Source Agencies: b > td >
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council
LBB Staff: b > td >
JMc, KDw, DA, NTh
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
Texas has enacted HB783, creating an immediate private cause of action for online impersonation using a person's likeness, voice, or name with intent to harm or defraud. This statute introduces a "loser pays" provision for attorney’s fees, significantly raising the financial risk for businesses using AI-generated content or influencer marketing that could be construed as unauthorized impersonation. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: June 20, 2025 (Due to supermajority vote, this is effective immediately upon enactment, superseding the standard September 1 date).
Q
Who authored HB783?
HB783 was authored by Texas Representative Suleman Lalani during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB783 signed into law?
HB783 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB783?
HB783 is enforced by Texas Civil Courts (Private Right of Action).
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB783?
The compliance urgency for HB783 is rated as "moderate". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB783?
The cost impact of HB783 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB783 address?
HB783 addresses topics including civil remedies & liabilities, protection of personal information, internet, courts and courts--general.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.