Judge blocks new California law to combat deepfakes in elections

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A new California law allowing anyone to sue for damages over election deepfakes has been put on hold after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking it.

U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said artificial intelligence and deepfakes pose significant risks but ruled the law likely violates the First Amendment.

“The bulk of AB 2839 acts like a hammer rather than a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally suppresses the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas so important to democratic debate in the United States,” Mendez wrote.

The law went into effect immediately after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it last month. At the time, the Democrat signed two other bills aimed at cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election. They are among the strictest laws of their kind in the country.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for Newsom, said the laws protect democracy and preserve free speech.

“We are confident that the courts will uphold the state’s ability to regulate these types of dangerous and misleading deepfakes,” he said in a statement. “Satire remains alive in California – even for those who miss the punchline.”

But a lawyer representing YouTuber Christopher Kohls, who sued state officials over the law, called the ruling “simple.”

“We are pleased that the district court agreed with our analysis that new technologies do not change the principles of First Amendment protection,” said attorney Theodore Frank.

The law was also unpopular with First Amendment experts, who urged Newsom to veto the measure last month. They argued that the law was unconstitutional and a government overreach.

“If something is truly defamatory, there are a number of statutes and established legal standards for how to prove a claim of defamation consistent with the First Amendment,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, in an interview at September. “The government is not free to create new categories of speech outside of the First Amendment.”