Louisiana House Bill 178 (Act No. 250) – Deepfakes Provisions

This is a shorter version of the Louisiana’s House Bill 178 (HB 178) that only includes parts that address the deepfake evidence issue in court.

For the full rendered text of HB 178, click on the following link: https://danielshin.net/knowledge-repository/repository-of-other-materials/louisiana-house-bill-178-act-no-250-revisions-to-code-of-civil-procedure/

ENROLLED

ACT No. 250

HOUSE BILL NO. 178

BY REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON

(On Recommendation of the Louisiana State Law Institute)

* * *

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1. Civil Code Article 3462 is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:

* * *

Art. 1551. Pretrial and scheduling conference; order

* * *

A. In any civil action in a district court, the court may, in its discretion, direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for conferences that may be conducted in chambers, by telephone, or by video teleconference to consider any of the following:

* * *

(5) The authenticity and admissibility of exhibits that a party intends to introduce at trial, including a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of exhibits or the setting of a hearing date as to the admissibility of exhibits.

(a) If a party has reasonable suspicion that an opposing party’s exhibits are falsified, including having been generated by artificial intelligence or altered by any means, the party shall raise these concerns at the pretrial conference or at a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of the exhibits.

(b) If a party knows or has reason to know that its exhibits have been falsified, including having been generated by artificial intelligence or altered by any means, the party shall disclose this fact in accordance with Article 371.

* * *

Comments – 2025

(a) Subparagraph (A)(5) of this Article requires that the parties address at a pretrial conference or hearing the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits that are suspected to have been created, altered, or manipulated. The Article’s use of “artificial intelligence” is broad and encompasses the suspected use of “deepfakes”. R.S. 14:73:13 defines “deepfake” to mean “any audio or visual media in an electronic format . . . that is created, altered, or digitally manipulated in a manner that would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of the individual or replace an individual’s likeness with another individual and depicted in the recording.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) defines “deepfake” to mean a “false video, audio recording, or other medium that is generated or manipulated by computer, often using artificial intelligence, with the intent to deceive viewers or listeners.

(b) Paragraph C of this Article is new and mandatory. To resolve the many issues with respect to the timing of challenging an expert’s qualifications or methodologies, the court shall either provide for deadlines in a pretrial or scheduling order in accordance with Paragraph A of this Article or, upon being notified by a party that it intends to use an expert in a summary judgment proceeding or at trial, issue an order in accordance with Paragraph C of this Article. These deadlines aim to ensure that motions are filed, and hearing dates are set, in accordance with applicable law and in consideration of the court’s calendar.