Thanks to a new Tennessee law designed to combat deep fakes and digital replicas, Taylor Swift could sue former President Donald Trump over his recent social media posts.
The Republican presidential nominee — who has spoken favorably of Swift in the past — reposted a series of images created with artificial intelligence on his social media platform, Truth Social.
Trump’s post highlighted an image showing Swift’s fans voting for Trump, which was labeled as satire, while two others included a real woman identified by Wired as Jenna Piwowarczyk, who is selling homemade “Swifties for Trump” T-shirts. But the one most likely to land him in hot water featured Swift dressed as Uncle Sam with text reading: “Taylor Wants You To Vote For Donald Trump.”
“I accept,” Trump wrote on Sunday, seemingly implying that he had received Swift’s endorsement.
Swift last made an endorsement in 2020, when she backed Joe Biden over Trump.
Trump’s post might be all it takes to give Swift’s team grounds to sue Trump under Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act. The law protects against “just about any unauthorized simulation of a person’s voice or appearance,” said Joseph Fishman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.
“It doesn’t matter whether an image is generated by AI or not, and it also doesn’t matter whether people are actually confused by it or not,” Fishman said. “In fact, the image doesn’t even need to be fake — it could be a real photo, just so long as the person distributing it knows the subject of the photo hasn’t authorized the use.”
But the ELVIS Act hasn’t been tested in court since it was signed into law just five months ago and took effect on July 1. That means any potential lawsuit would be wading into uncharted legal waters.
While it appears that reposting those images would satisfy the law’s provisions, Trump could “play dumb” and question whether he knew Swift had not endorsed him or that the image was fake, said Jin Yoshikawa, a Tennessee-based intellectual property lawyer at Adams and Reese. Trump could also cite the protections afforded under the First Amendment and claim his post was satirical or an exaggeration meant to provoke or convey a message.
“This is Donald Trump’s modus operandi, to demand others to ignore what he literally said or did and instead see what he ‘really’ meant,” Yoshikawa said. “He relies on the imperfection and flexibility of human expression and takes advantage of the gray area between artistic expression and statements of fact.”
In a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wrote that “Swifties for Trump is a massive movement that gets bigger every day.”
Swift and her team have not yet publicly commented on the situation.
While Swift could theoretically sue the former president under the ELVIS Act, it doesn’t mean she will.
Besides Tennessee, nine other states have similar legislation to regulate deepfakes, and there are federal projections against trademark infringement, false advertising, and false endorsement claims. Any legal action would likely be expensive — both in time and at the bank.
“In this particular instance, a lawsuit would probably get gummed up by defenses over whether this should be treated as acceptable satire, but the claim wouldn’t be unreasonable.” Fishman said. “Still, publicity rights accusations in campaign contexts tend to be resolved through angry press releases and public shaming rather than formal legal proceedings.”
James Parker is a UK-based entertainment aficionado who delves into the glitz and glamour of the entertainment industry. From Hollywood to the West End, he offers readers an insider’s perspective on the world of movies, music, and pop culture.
