Safeguarding Truth and Identity in the Digital Age: The Protecting Truth and Identity Act
In today's digital world, Texans are bombarded with manipulated images, AI-generated videos, and viral posts that blur the line between truth and fiction. False information spreads faster than corrections, reputations are destroyed in hours, and people's identities and likenesses are copied, edited, and exploited without consent. The Protecting Truth and Identity Act is written to meet this challenge by protecting truth, personal identity, and digital property rights—without censoring viewpoints or criminalizing offensive opinions.
Why This Law Is Needed
The Internet has made every person a potential publisher, but it has also opened the door for bad actors to weaponize falsehoods and fabricated media at unprecedented scale. Modern technologies, including artificial intelligence and sophisticated editing tools, allow anyone to create "deepfakes" and other fabricated media that depict people doing and saying things that never happened. When this false content is presented as true, it can destroy reputations, distort elections, defraud the public, and put families at risk.
Existing laws only partially address these harms. Texas defamation statutes in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allow civil suits for libel and slander, but they were not built for the speed and reach of today's online platforms (Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. chs. 73, 96). Texas Penal Code § 33.07 criminalizes online impersonation, and identity theft is prohibited under federal law such as 18 U.S.C. § 1028, yet these laws do not provide a coherent civil remedy to force rapid correction or removal of false factual content itself (Texas Penal Code § 33.07; Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, 1998). Federal law, especially Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shields platforms from liability for most user-generated content, leaving harmed citizens to chase anonymous users they often cannot identify (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996).
At the same time, Texans' personal data and digital "footprints" have become raw material for surveillance capitalism. The Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) gives consumers some rights to access and correct their data, but does not treat a person's content, identity, image, and likeness as property that requires consent and fair compensation for use (Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, 2024). The Protecting Truth and Identity Act builds on these foundations and fills in the gaps by establishing clear property rights in personal digital content, creating a correction and removal process, and making identity verification the backbone of accountability (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
How the Law Is Designed to Function
The Protecting Truth and Identity Act is added to the Texas Business and Commerce Code as Chapter 122 and applies to "covered systems"—websites, apps, and online platforms accessible to Texans where content is published or shared (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The law carefully allocates responsibility: owners and operators are directly accountable for their own first-party content and for purchased user content they choose to republish, while users remain primarily accountable for content they create and post. The Act expressly respects 47 U.S.C. § 230 by avoiding platform liability for pure user content, except for specific platform duties spelled out in the statute.
At the heart of the law is a simple distinction: factual statements versus opinion. A "factual statement" is defined as a statement that purports to describe objective reality and can be verified as true or false by competent evidence. "Opinion" is defined as a subjective belief, interpretation, theory, assumption, or value judgment that cannot be objectively verified; under the Act, opinion—however offensive or unpopular—remains protected speech and serves as a defense against claims of false statements of fact (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The law provides that whether something is opinion is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, including context, language, and how a reasonable reader would understand it.
The law also creates a specialized Information and Technology Court ("IT Court") to adjudicate disputes under Chapter 122. These courts provide expert, streamlined, largely online proceedings focused on determining whether content is a false statement of fact, whether CIIL (content, identity, image, and likeness) has been misused, and what specific corrections or removals are required. Findings of the IT Court that content is false are admissible as evidence in related defamation cases, strengthening existing remedies rather than replacing them (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
Identity Verification and Accountability
A major innovation of the Act is its identity verification requirement. Owners and operators of covered systems must verify the true legal identity of all users who create, publish, or submit content—whether posts, comments, uploads, or reviews—using government-issued ID, biometric verification, notarized affidavit, or other approved methods (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The platform must maintain verified identities on file for at least seven years and must itself maintain a verified identity with its registrar or host.
Crucially, the law permits users to continue publishing content under pseudonyms or anonymously for public viewing; the verified identity stays in the platform's records and is disclosed only under lawful process to courts or law enforcement. This balances the historic value of anonymous public speech—especially for whistleblowers or dissidents—with the need to hold real people accountable when their factual assertions cause demonstrable harm (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
The law includes heightened protections and penalties around false identity statements related to minors. Adults who falsify age or parental status to access or obtain a minor's CIIL face significant civil penalties, potential law enforcement referral, and permanent suspension of accounts across covered systems upon court order. Minors who misstate age are not fined, but parents or guardians are notified, and access is suspended until proper verification is completed, reinforcing parental authority and the safety of minors online (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
Property Rights in Content, Identity, Image, and Likeness
The Act defines "content, identity, image, and likeness" (CIIL) as a unified property interest belonging to each natural person or legal entity (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). This includes the content a person creates, their identity markers (name, handle, biometric identifiers), and images or audio by which they are identifiable—such as photographs, video, voice recordings, avatars, logos, and similar representations. The legislature expressly finds that CIIL is personal property and that no one has the right to take, exploit, or commercially use that property without consent and fair compensation.
Users retain ownership of their user-generated content unless they sell it for monetary consideration under a written agreement. Platforms cannot treat user content as their own property merely because it is hosted on their systems; they are custodians, not owners, unless a true sale occurs. Personal data collection is likewise reoriented: the default must be privacy-protective, requiring express consent and fair compensation for collecting and using personal data beyond what is minimally necessary for a requested transaction or to comply with legal obligations (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
For Texans, this means that their online actions and presence—posts, interactions, behavioral data, and likenesses—are recognized as products of their identity in the digital environment. Any business that wants to collect and monetize that data as an asset must treat it as the citizen's property, not as free corporate raw material.
Correction and Removal: The Pathway to Justice
The Act builds a clear, stepwise pathway for citizens to seek justice when false factual content or misuse of their CIIL causes harm. First, it creates a "correction request" process: any person may submit a written request to an owner, operator, or user, identifying specific content and explaining why it contains a false statement of fact, with supporting evidence (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). Platforms and users are obligated to exercise reasonable diligence and, when the content is demonstrably false, to correct, remove, or replace it and to publish a visible correction.
Second, the law creates a "removal request" process for CIIL. Any person may demand removal of content containing their CIIL from covered systems in circumstances defined by the Act, especially in cases involving intimate or private images, sexually explicit likeness material, or fabricated media that misrepresents reality. For sexually explicit likeness material, the Act provides expedited procedures that supplement existing civil remedies under Chapter 98B of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and criminal provisions under Texas Penal Code §§ 21.16 and 21.165, as well as the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft; Texas Penal Code § 21.16; Texas Penal Code § 21.165; TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-16).
If a platform or user refuses to comply with legitimate correction or removal requests, the harmed person may file a civil action in the Information and Technology Court. The IT Court can issue orders requiring corrections, removals, or suspension of public access to non-compliant websites, and can direct Internet service providers and hosting services to enforce those orders (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The court may impose civil penalties and attorneys' fees, and its findings that content is false serve as powerful evidence in any follow-on defamation suit.
In practice, this means a Texan harmed by a viral falsehood no longer has to choose between doing nothing and waging an expensive, years-long defamation battle. They gain a clear, specialized process designed to quickly determine whether the content is factual, whether it is true or false, and what must be done to correct the record.
Enhanced Protections for Minors
The Act recognizes that minors are uniquely vulnerable to false information, fabricated media, and sexual exploitation online. It explicitly supplements federal protections in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, and federal child sexual abuse material statutes in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2256 (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 1998; TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-16; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The law affirms parents' and guardians' fundamental constitutional right—recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Troxel v. Granville (2000), Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)—to direct their children's upbringing and includes custodianship of a minor's CIIL within that right.
Parents and guardians are designated as "minor's CIIL custodians" with authority to manage and protect a minor's digital presence under this chapter (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The identity verification requirements, parental consent mechanisms, and removal rights give parents tools to identify threats, stop misuse of their child's identity and likeness, and force removal of sexually explicit or fabricated media involving minors. These protections do not replace federal law; they strengthen it by adding Texas-specific civil remedies and enforcement mechanisms.
Defense Against Free Speech Concerns
Some critics may worry that any law touching online content threatens free speech or creates a "ministry of truth." The Protecting Truth and Identity Act is drafted precisely to avoid that danger while addressing conduct that has never been fully protected by the First Amendment.
First, the law draws a firm line between factual statements and opinion (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). Offensive, derogatory, indecent, cruel, or otherwise distasteful opinions remain protected, even when they are morally repugnant, as long as they do not cross into threats, fraud, or other unprotected categories. The statute explicitly states that nothing in the chapter prohibits any person from expressing offensive, derogatory, or controversial opinions about persons, groups, or ideas.
Second, the Act rests on long-standing constitutional doctrine that false factual statements causing harm—such as defamation, fraud, and false statements integral to criminal conduct—are not afforded full First Amendment protection (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The legislative findings specifically analogize the conduct targeted here to the classic example, recognized in Schenck v. United States (1919), of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and causing panic. Just as the state may punish or restrain such dangerous falsehoods, it may provide mechanisms to correct false statements of fact that damage reputation, safety, or property rights when those statements are presented as true on Internet-accessible systems.
Third, the Act does not create any board, agency, or political body empowered to decide what is true in general or to pre-approve speech (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). Instead, it creates judicial mechanisms—case-by-case, evidence-driven, and bound by the rules of evidence and appellate review—to determine whether specific content asserts facts, whether those facts are true or false, and what narrowly tailored correction or removal is warranted. There is no licensing of speech, no prior restraint, and no viewpoint discrimination; the law targets conduct (false factual representations that cause harm and misuse of another's CIIL) rather than ideas or opinions.
Fourth, the identity verification requirement is narrowly tailored to enable accountability without eliminating anonymous public speech (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). Users may still post anonymously to the world; the difference is that a court, upon proper legal process, can identify who is responsible when rights are violated. The law explicitly states that its mechanisms are not intended to eliminate anonymous speech but to ensure that every publisher of content can be held accountable when they infringe the property and reputational rights of others.
Finally, rather than shrinking the space for speech, the Act aims to increase its value (Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft). The Legislature finds that protecting truth in digital media enhances, rather than restricts, free speech by ensuring that public discourse is informed, reliable, and trustworthy. When citizens can rely on the factual backbone of what they read—even as they fiercely debate opinions—the marketplace of ideas becomes stronger, not weaker.
How This Law Interacts with Existing Legal Protections
The Protecting Truth and Identity Act does not stand alone; it sits on top of and alongside existing federal and state law:
• It complements Texas defamation statutes (Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 73 and 96) by providing a faster, specialized path to determine falsity and secure corrections, while leaving traditional defamation damages actions intact (Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. chs. 73, 96; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
• It reinforces Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (online impersonation) and federal identity theft law (18 U.S.C. § 1028) by ensuring that identity verification and CIIL protections make impersonation, deepfakes, and exploitative use of likeness easier to detect, prove, and remedy (Texas Penal Code § 33.07; Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, 1998; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
• It aligns with and supplements the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act by treating personal data and CIIL as property requiring express consent and fair compensation, adding a stronger property-rights frame to existing privacy rights (Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, 2024; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
• It respects Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by avoiding platform liability for pure user content, focusing instead on users' accountability and platform compliance with process duties such as identity verification, correction handling, and cooperation with court orders (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
• It supplements federal and state protections against sexual exploitation and intimate image abuse, including Chapter 98B of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Texas Penal Code §§ 21.16 and 21.165, COPPA, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, and federal child sexual abuse material statutes (Civil Practice and Remedies Code ch. 98B; Texas Penal Code § 21.16; Texas Penal Code § 21.165; Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 1998; TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-16; Protecting Truth and Identity Act, draft).
In short, the Protecting Truth and Identity Act weaves together defamation law, privacy law, data-protection law, and child-protection law into a coherent framework for the digital age, without attempting to overwrite federal supremacy or established constitutional boundaries.
Key Existing Laws and Remaining Gaps Addressed by the Protecting Truth and Identity Act
| Category | Law | Description | Jurisdiction | Key Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Protecting Truth Online (Defamation and False Information) |
Texas Defamation Laws (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapters 73 and 96) |
Prohibits false statements that harm reputation, including online libel; allows individuals to sue for damages if false information causes harm. | Texas | Laws were not built for the speed and reach of online platforms; platforms often immune under federal law; anti‑SLAPP protections can dismiss frivolous suits but may also deter valid claims; no specialized process for rapid online corrections. |
|
Protecting Truth Online (Defamation and False Information) |
FTC Rule on Fake Reviews and Testimonials (Effective 2024) |
Bans fake reviews, testimonials, and suppression of honest reviews online; enforced by the Federal Trade Commission with civil penalties. | Federal | Focuses on commercial deception in reviews and endorsements; does not cover general misinformation or provide a private right of action for citizens to demand correction or removal of non‑commercial false content. |
| Ending Online Anonymity |
Texas SCOPE Act (HB 18) (Effective 2024) |
Requires social media platforms to verify ages of minors, limiting access to harmful content and indirectly reducing anonymity for minors through age‑verification processes. | Texas | Applies mainly to minors and to certain covered platforms; has faced constitutional challenges and partial blocking in courts; does not establish universal identity verification or civil remedies for false factual content. |
| Ending Online Anonymity |
Texas HB 1181 (Effective 2023, upheld by Supreme Court 2025) |
Mandates age verification for websites with significant adult content, requiring users to submit ID for access and thereby eroding anonymity in that specific context. | Texas | Limited to adult‑content sites; does not apply to general platforms or broader online activity; does not create correction or removal mechanisms for false factual statements. |
| Protecting Identity |
Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (Online Impersonation) |
Criminalizes using someone’s name or identity online to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten, including fake profiles on social media. | Texas | Primarily criminal; does not provide a comprehensive civil framework for victims to force corrections or removals; does not address anonymous harassment that does not rise to impersonation. |
| Protecting Identity |
Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) (Effective 2024) |
Grants consumers rights to access, correct, and delete certain personal data held by businesses, enhancing individual control over personal information. | Texas | Enforced only by the Attorney General; no private right of action; treats data as regulated information, not as personal property requiring consent and fair compensation for collection and use. |
| Protecting Identity |
Federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1028) |
Prohibits producing or using false identification documents, including online, with criminal penalties for identity fraud and related conduct. | Federal | Focuses on fraud and misuse of identification documents; limited to cases involving tangible harm and criminal thresholds; does not provide civil tools to correct online falsehoods or misused digital likenesses. |
| Protecting Identity |
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523) |
Protects against unauthorized interception of electronic communications, including emails and messages, to safeguard privacy and certain aspects of identity. | Federal | Applies to interception and access to communications; not designed for modern social‑media content, deepfakes, or property rights in digital identity and likeness; no direct mechanism for victims to compel removal of harmful content. |
| Citizen Suits for Removal/Correction of False Posts |
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) |
Immunizes online platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of user‑generated content, while allowing them to voluntarily remove certain harmful or objectionable material. | Federal | Prevents most suits against platforms for user content; citizens must sue individual posters, often anonymous; does not provide a structured correction or removal process or identity‑verification framework. |
| Citizen Suits for Removal/Correction of False Posts |
Texas Online Harassment Laws (Penal Code § 42.07) |
Criminalizes harassing communications, including certain online conduct; in related civil actions, victims can sometimes seek court orders for removal of harassing content. | Texas | Primarily criminal; not tailored to general false factual statements or deepfake content; civil remedies are indirect and do not establish a dedicated, expert court or standardized correction and removal process for online harms. |
References
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (1998). https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa
COPPA imposes requirements on online services directed to children under 13, and the Act expressly notes that its protections for minors and parental control over minors' CIIL are designed to reinforce, not supplant, these federal safeguards.
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. chs. 73, 96 (West). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.73.htm
These chapters govern defamation actions in Texas, including libel and certain remedies for false statements, and provide the background civil framework that the Act complements by adding specialized correction and evidentiary mechanisms in the digital context.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523 (1986). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-119
ECPA protects against unauthorized interception of electronic communications; it forms part of the broader federal privacy backdrop that the Act supplements by focusing specifically on CIIL and personal data as property in digital spaces.
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (1998). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028
This statute criminalizes the production and use of false identification documents and identity fraud, and the Act's CIIL and identity-verification provisions are designed to complement these criminal prohibitions with civil remedies and accountability mechanisms.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/390/
This U.S. Supreme Court case recognizes parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which the Act invokes to justify parental custodianship of minors' CIIL and enhanced parental control over minors' digital presence.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/
This U.S. Supreme Court case recognizes parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which the Act invokes to justify parental custodianship of minors' CIIL and enhanced parental control over minors' digital presence.
Protecting Truth and Identity Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 122 (draft). [Draft legislation under development]
This draft legislative chapter establishes property rights in content, identity, image, and likeness, mandates identity verification for users of covered systems, creates correction and removal processes, and establishes the Information and Technology Courts to enforce these rights while respecting free speech.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/
This case is cited in the Act's legislative findings as an illustration that certain harmful false statements—like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater—are not protected speech, providing historical support for treating harmful false factual assertions online as subject to corrective regulation.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms for user-generated content; the Act is drafted to acknowledge this immunity, assigning primary accountability to users and limiting platform obligations to specific duties such as identity verification and cooperation with court-ordered remedies.
TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-16 (U.S.). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1199
This federal law creates mechanisms for the removal of certain intimate images; the Act builds on it by adding state-level, expedited civil removal procedures for sexually explicit likeness abuse material and fabricated media.
Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. (effective 2024). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB00004F.htm
TDPSA grants consumers rights over their personal data collected by businesses; the Act adopts a stronger property-rights approach by requiring express consent and fair compensation for personal data collection and use beyond narrow transactional needs.
Texas House Bill 1181, 88th Leg., R.S. (Tex. 2023). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181F.htm
HB 1181 requires age verification for access to adult content websites and has been upheld in court; the Act builds on these ID-verification principles and extends them to a broader accountability framework for all users of covered systems.
Texas Penal Code § 21.16 (Unlawful Disclosure or Promotion of Intimate Visual Material). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm
This provision criminalizes nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, and the Act explicitly states that its civil removal procedures are intended to supplement and reinforce these existing criminal protections.
Texas Penal Code § 21.165 (Deep Fake Sexual Exploitation). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm
This provision criminalizes deepfake sexual exploitation, and the Act explicitly states that its civil removal procedures are intended to supplement and reinforce these existing criminal protections.
Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (Online Impersonation). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.33.htm
This statute criminalizes certain forms of online impersonation, and the Act relies on its foundation while extending civil protections through identity verification, CIIL property rights, and IT Court remedies to address impersonation and fabricated media.
Texas Penal Code § 42.07 (Harassment). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm
The online harassment provision is part of the existing toolbox for victims of harmful online conduct and serves as a criminal backdrop to the civil correction and removal mechanisms created by the Act.
Texas Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 509 (HB 18). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB00018F.htm
The SCOPE Act focuses on age verification and parental tools regarding minors' use of social media; the Protecting Truth and Identity Act references and supplements this framework by grounding minors' digital presence in parental custodianship of CIIL and enhanced identity verification.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
This U.S. Supreme Court case recognizes parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which the Act invokes to justify parental custodianship of minors' CIIL and enhanced parental control over minors' digital presence.