AI Deepfakes in Massachusetts Schools: The April 2026 DESE Guidance and a Student’s Criminal Exposure

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center | 30 Years Massachusetts Criminal Defense

On April 15, 2026, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education issued guidance directing Massachusetts schools to respond to AI-generated deepfake images and videos of students. The guidance arrived against a criminal framework the Legislature completed in 2024: St. 2024, c. 118 added the distribution of explicit images, expressly including computer-generated images, to G. L. c. 265, § 43A, created a juvenile-specific offense at G. L. c. 272, § 29D, and built a mandatory diversion program for charged minors at G. L. c. 119, § 54B. A student caught in a deepfake incident this school year will meet both systems at once.

The Guidance

The guidance directs schools to investigate reports promptly, to stop the conduct, to protect affected students and staff, and to educate students on the harm this abuse causes. It reminds districts that creating an AI-generated nude image of a minor is a criminal offense, and it ties the school’s response to existing obligations under the state anti-bullying law, G. L. c. 71, § 37O, the anti-discrimination laws, and federal Title IX requirements. Section 37O already requires principals to investigate reports of bullying, to notify parents, and to refer matters to law enforcement where criminal charges may be pursued. The practical consequence for an accused student is that the school investigation and the police referral now run on an expected, published track from the first report.

The Criminal Frame

For the accused student, the charges divide by the image and the age of the person depicted. Distribution of a nude, partially nude, or sexual image of an identifiable person, including a deepfake, is punished under G. L. c. 265, § 43A (b) by up to two and one half years in the house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. Where the person depicted is under 18, the felony statutes at G. L. c. 272, §§ 29B and 29C apply, and a felony complaint alone permits a principal to suspend a student under G. L. c. 71, § 37H½. For minors, G. L. c. 272, § 29D now governs peer cases, with affirmative defenses, no sex offender registration, and expungement eligibility, and G. L. c. 119, § 54B directs the court to stay the arraignment indefinitely and route the child into the Attorney General’s educational diversion program unless the district attorney objects and the court sustains the objection. The statutes, the diversion mechanics, and the school discipline process are treated in full on the firm’s AI deepfake and explicit image charges page and in the companion student AI deepfake FAQs.

The First Week

The first week decides much of the case. A family should not permit the student to be interviewed at school, to write an apology, or to post about the incident before counsel is involved, because statements to school administrators are not suppressed the way unwarned statements to the police may be, and § 37O routes what the school learns to law enforcement. The family should preserve the devices and the message threads unaltered, because attribution, who created and who sent what, is the center of the defense, as it is in every digital case the firm handles, from phone and computer searches to the postconviction analysis discussed in Commonwealth v. Watson. And where the complaint has not yet issued, counsel contests it at the earliest hearing, before a record exists. If your child is caught in a deepfake investigation, contact Attorney Serpa at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.