Judge Blocks California Political Deepfake Law

A federal judge put the new law on hold, declaring it unconstitutionally impinges on the First Amendment

John Yellig

October 4, 2024

2 Min Read
Getty Images

A federal judge temporarily blocked a new California law that restricts the use of political deepfakes around elections, writing that it likely violates the First Amendment.

The preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez is in response to a lawsuit filed by Christopher Kohls, known online as Mr. Reagan, who sued the state, saying the law, AB 2839, made computer-generated parody illegal. Mendez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed.

“The court acknowledges that the risks posed by artificial intelligence and deepfakes are significant, especially as civic engagement migrates online and disinformation proliferates on social media,” Mendez wrote. “However, most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate.”

The law, which California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law last month, aimed to restrict false or misleading election-related content that had been digitally altered four months before an election and up to 60 days afterward by allowing anyone who received the communications to sue the distributor for damages and end their dissemination. AB 2839 is one of a handful of laws related to AI-generated content that Newsom recently signed.

Related:AI Deepfakes in Political Ads Banned in California

Kohls, who has 378,000 followers on Youtube, makes satirical political videos, including one that used AI-generated voiceover clips of Vice President Kamala Harris, in which she calls herself a “diversity hire.”

Mendez found that the law is unconstitutional because it “does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here.” 

“As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting videos such as those posted by Plaintiff, no matter how offensive or inappropriate someone may find them,” Mendez wrote, adding, “While California has a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, AB 2839 is unconstitutional because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content based law requires under strict scrutiny.” 

In a statement made in response to the ruling, Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon disagreed, saying the law manages to protect democracy as well as free speech.

"Deepfakes threaten the integrity of our elections, and these new laws protect our democracy while preserving free speech — in a manner no more stringent than those in other states, including deep-red Alabama,” Gardon said. “We’re confident the courts will uphold the state's ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes. Satire remains alive and well in California — even for those who miss the punchline."

Related:California Governor Signs 9 Bills Regulating AI-Generated Content

About the Author

John Yellig

John Yellig has been a journalist for more than 20 years, writing and editing for a range of publications both in print and online. His primary coverage areas over the years have included criminal justice, politics, government, finance, real estate and technology.

Keep up with the ever-evolving AI landscape
Unlock exclusive AI content by subscribing to our newsletter!!

You May Also Like