AI in Finance Deepfake Task Force

Summary#

The Preventing Deep Fake Scams Act would create a federal task force; it does not amend an existing law. The task force would report to Congress on artificial intelligence (AI) in financial services. Its stated goal is to address risks such as AI-enabled data theft, identity theft, and fraud. The bill is introduced and has not become law; whether it will pass is uncertain.

  • The task force would be chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and include leaders, or their designees, from six other federal agencies.
  • Within 90 days of enactment, it must ask the public for feedback. It must also seek input from financial institutions, credit unions, AI service vendors, and AI experts.
  • Within one year of enactment, it must report to Congress on how banks and credit unions protect against AI-related fraud; AI definitions; potential risks; best practices; and legislative and regulatory recommendations.
  • The task force would end 90 days after issuing its report.

What it means for you#

  • Consumers: The bill would not itself require banks to adopt new protections, give consumers a new right or service, or create penalties for scams. Its effect would be to require a report and recommendations.
  • Banks, credit unions, and AI vendors: They would not be required to follow new security standards under this bill. The task force must seek input from institutions of different sizes and from vendors that use AI to serve them.
  • Federal agencies: The named agency leaders would have to serve on the task force or name a designee. The task force must meet the feedback and reporting deadlines.
  • General public: The task force must solicit public feedback, but the bill does not set out how people can submit it or require the task force to adopt particular suggestions.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not state a budget, authorize a specific appropriation, or say how many staff members or other resources the task force would receive.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set out how public feedback will be collected or how the task force will choose whose input to include.
  • It does not define AI-related terms; instead, the task force must include proposed standard definitions in its report.
  • It does not specify what staffing, funding, or other resources agencies must provide.
  • It does not require agencies or financial institutions to act on the report’s recommendations.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to help Congress understand how AI can be used both to protect financial accounts and to enable fraud.
  • A report covering risks, current protections, and best practices could give lawmakers information before they consider new rules.
  • Requiring input from institutions of different sizes, vendors, experts, and the public could bring varied perspectives into the report.

Case against#

  • The bill requires a report, not immediate changes to how banks protect customers. Any new standards or legal protections would depend on later action.
  • The bill does not give the task force a specific budget or staff, so the resources available to meet its deadlines are unclear.
  • It does not require the task force to follow a set process for weighing public input or explain how agencies and banks should respond to its recommendations.