Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB649

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/29/25
• Refer: 4/29/25
• Engrossed: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Refer: 6/25/25
• Report Pass: 6/26/25
• Enrolled: 6/30/25
• Chaptered: 7/7/25
• Passed: 7/7/25

Caption

In forgery and fraudulent practices, providing for the offense of digital forgery.

Impact

If the bill is enacted, it will create specific legal consequences for individuals found guilty of digital forgery. The provisions include grading the offense as a first-degree misdemeanor for general violations and a third-degree felony if the offense ties into a scheme to defraud or commit theft. This classification aims to enhance deterrence against the misuse of digital technology and protect individuals from identity fraud, reinforcing legal repercussions for those who exploit digital likenesses.

Summary

Senate Bill 649, introduced in Pennsylvania, focuses on addressing digital forgery by amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. The bill defines the offense of digital forgery, which occurs when an individual creates or distributes a forged digital likeness with the intent to defraud or cause injury. The legislation aims to tackle the growing concern of digital misinformation and unauthorized digital representations, reflecting the need for updated legal frameworks in response to technological advancements.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 649 is generally supportive among legislators and advocacy groups focused on technology and fraud prevention. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to protect individuals' identities in a digital age where misinformation can be easily spread. However, there are concerns among some civil liberties advocates regarding potential overreach, as the bill includes various exceptions that could create ambiguities in enforcement, particularly around artistic expression and freedom of speech.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the bill's exceptions for satire, parody, and commentary. Critics warn that these provisions might lead to confusion about what constitutes permissible digital representation versus actual forgery. Additionally, the bill's enforcement mechanisms raise concerns about the balance between preventing fraud and maintaining First Amendment rights. The discourse around the bill illustrates the tension between protecting individuals from digital harm while ensuring artists and communicators retain their rights to free expression.