Your voice and likeness, cloned without consent.

What HB 4875 does

HB 4875 amended Illinois's existing Right of Publicity Act — the law protecting a person's commercial interest in their own identity — to confront a problem that generative AI made urgent: convincing synthetic copies of real people. Effective January 1, 2025, it defines a “digital replica” as a newly created, electronic representation of an actual individual's voice, image, or likeness, produced with AI or similar technology, fixed in a recording or audiovisual work in which the person did not actually perform — and which a reasonable person would believe is genuinely that individual. The Act addresses the unauthorized use of such replicas, including knowingly distributing work containing an unauthorized digital replica, and because it sits within the Right of Publicity Act it is enforced through a private civil action by the person whose identity was used, not by an agency. It positioned Illinois among the early states to legislate directly against AI-generated impersonation. Importantly, the statute also contains defined exceptions and limitations — for uses such as news, public affairs, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody, and limitations touching certain platform, service-provider, and similar contexts — so not every unauthorized-seeming use is actionable. The exact definitions, the consent mechanics, the exceptions, and the available remedies should be verified against the current statute, as this is a fast-developing area.

Who this protects, and who is at risk

There are two sides to this law, and the firm can stand on either. On the protection side are the people whose identities can be cloned — performers, musicians, public figures, but increasingly anyone whose voice or face can be scraped and synthesized. For them, HB 4875 provides a basis to object to and seek remedies for an unauthorized AI replica. On the risk side are the businesses, platforms, marketers, and content producers who create or distribute AI-generated content — for whom an unauthorized digital replica is a liability they may not see coming, especially when synthetic voices or faces are generated casually inside a marketing or product workflow. Understanding which side you are on, and what the law requires, is the starting point.

Consent is the dividing line

As with BIPA's biometric consent and the publicity right generally, the line between lawful and unlawful here runs through consent. Using a person's digital replica with proper authorization can be perfectly legitimate — it is the unauthorized use that the Act targets. For a business generating synthetic media, that means consent and rights-clearance are not afterthoughts; they are the control that keeps a creative or product decision from becoming a publicity-rights claim. Right-of-publicity law also has recognized boundaries — categories like news, public affairs, and certain expressive uses are treated differently — and where a given use falls is a fact-specific question that should be evaluated rather than assumed.

Why an AI-fluent analysis matters

Whether something is a “digital replica” that a reasonable person would believe is really the individual, and how it was generated, are questions that benefit from genuine familiarity with how these systems produce synthetic voices and images. Adam evaluates digital-replica questions as someone who builds and governs AI systems and holds the AIGP credential — bringing an understanding of the underlying technology to a legal question that is fundamentally about what the technology can now convincingly fake. For content-producing businesses, this connects directly to AI governance and vendor review (the tools generating the media) and to broader privacy and IP exposure.

How the firm helps on both sides

For individuals whose identity has been used without authorization, the firm evaluates the situation under the Right of Publicity Act as amended and advises on options. For businesses and platforms creating or distributing AI-generated content, the firm builds the consent, rights-clearance, and review practices that keep synthetic media on the right side of the line — and folds that into a broader AI governance and content-policy framework. Engagements are hourly or flat-fee for defined scopes. Because this area is new and moving, current verification of the statute is part of the work, not an afterthought.

What usually goes wrong

On the business side, the recurring failure is generating synthetic voices, faces, or likenesses inside a marketing or product workflow without anyone clearing the rights — treating AI media generation as a creative choice rather than a publicity-rights decision, until a real person recognizes themselves in it. On the individual side, it is not knowing the protection exists, or assuming nothing can be done about an AI clone of one's voice or image. Across both, it is assuming a use is fine because it “isn't really” the person — when the statute turns precisely on whether a reasonable person would believe it is, which convincing AI output increasingly satisfies.

Related

• AI & Data Privacy →
• AI for Startups & Product Counsel →
• AI Governance Frameworks & Policy →