California ruling protects deepfake satire

A judge has temporarily paused a new California law restricting artificial intelligence–generated political satire after a YouTuber and the Christian satire site The Babylon Bee sued. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez ruled that though “deepfakes” pose significant risks, the law likely violates First Amendment rights.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three laws into effect last month aimed at combating deepfake election content. Deepfakes are images, videos, or other digital content that look real but have been manipulated to show false information.

“Safeguarding the integrity of elections is essential to democracy,” Newsom said in a statement. “It’s critical that we ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation—especially in today’s fraught political climate.”

One of the laws, AB 2839, restricts the posting and sharing of “deceptive” election-related content. It bans AI or deepfake portrayals of candidates “doing or saying something that the candidate did not do or say.”

Within minutes of the bills’ signing, YouTuber Christopher Kohls sued over AB 2839 and another of the laws, according to his attorneys. The second law Kohls challenged, AB 2655, requires social media companies to take down deepfake content beginning Jan. 1.

Kohls argues that the two laws violate the First Amendment right to free speech, including political satire.

Kohls, known by his social media handle “Mr Reagan,” makes deepfake satirical election content that utilizes AI-generated narration imitating politicians’ voices.

Kohls claims that Newsom fast-tracked the laws after the YouTuber posted a parody video in July mocking Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential candidacy. Two days later, Newsom denounced the video on X, stating that “manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.”

In ruling Wednesday, Mendez issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Kohls. The judge found AB 2839 likely to be deemed unconstitutional at trial, so he temporarily halted the law.

The case for the law requiring social media companies to pull deepfake content is still in process.

Mendez noted that while California legislatures have a “valid” interest in protecting election information from digitally altered media, AB 2839, the law restricting deepfakes, is too broad.

“Most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel,” Mendez wrote. “Supreme Court precedent illuminates that while a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape may be justified, this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”

He added that the law bars the “unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate.”

The law carved out an exception for posting satirical content if it included a disclaimer in a font a size “no smaller than the largest font size of other text appearing in the visual media.” But Mendez ruled this exception ineffective.

“[In] Kohls’ case, this requirement renders his video almost unviewable, obstructing the entirety of the frame,” Mendez said. “The obstructiveness of this requirement is concerning because parody and satire have relayed creative and important messages in American politics.”

Mendez’s quick ruling on the first law was vital for this election season, said Adam Schulman, an attorney representing Kohls.

“It will free up the ordinary citizens on the internet to critique public officials and candidates in a way that they have for hundreds of years in American history without the threat of civil liability,” he said.

The Babylon Bee and a California attorney, Kelly Chang Rickert, also sued over the laws about two weeks after Kohls. Their joint suit argued that the laws impede The Babylon Bee’s ability to post paradoxical content and Rickert’s ability to publish or reshare any satirical post.

California politicians abused their power by attempting to “control public discourse and clamp down on comedy” through the laws, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said in a statement.

The judge’s preliminary injunction is unclear on the extent of its protection—California could argue the ruling protects only Kohls, said Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who represents The Babylon Bee and Rickert. ADF is pushing its case forward, asking the courts to issue a ruling that clearly protects those two parties, as well, Scruggs said.

California’s deepfake laws are concerningly vague and broad, Scruggs added. If someone in the state reshares a deepfake post, that person could face legal prosecution.

“That is extremely broad and has [an] extreme chilling effect,” Scruggs said, calling it a “large step” toward censorship. “If you’re just an everyday person, you’re unsure what this law covers. To avoid getting sued, you might not say anything at all.”

Lawmakers have proposed nearly 120 bills regulating AI-generated posts in 42 states, according to the Voting Rights Lab, a nonpartisan organization that tracks election laws. However, there hasn’t been any legislation in the country that goes as far as California’s, Scruggs said.

“Efforts like this to censor core political debate and political discussion in the name of misinformation—it’s a scary thing,” Scruggs said. “We shouldn’t be trusting political officials to decide what is true and false in our political debates online.”