A federal court has ruled that California’s attempt to regulate deepfake political content went too far, sparking debate over digital speech rights and election security.

The Christian Post reported that U.S. District Judge John Mendez struck down California Assembly Bill 2839 after finding it unlawfully restricted freedom of expression protected under the First Amendment.

The law, commonly referred to as AB 2839, was signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September 2024. It was introduced by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin of Santa Cruz as an attempt to curb the use of misleading digital media during election seasons, especially content created with artificial intelligence technologies.

The legislation gained momentum following controversy over a 2024 online ad crafted by political commentator Christopher Kohls. The ad used a digital voice clone to imitate Vice President Kamala Harris in what was intended as satire. After Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), reshared the video, it drew widespread criticism and intensified calls for regulation.

AB 2839 allowed political candidates to sue individuals for creating deepfakes that misrepresented them in a negative light, even if the content could later be identified as satire or parody.

Judge finds free speech infringement under scrutiny

Judge Mendez, presiding over the case in the Eastern District of California, declared the law unconstitutional. He ruled that AB 2839 restricted speech “based on content, viewpoint, and speaker,” and enforced what he called unprecedented limits on protected expression.

“Rather than targeting content that procures tangible harms,” Mendez wrote, the law attempted to suppress expression before it caused damage or proved false. He emphasized that California’s sweeping approach had no prior equivalent in First Amendment jurisprudence.

The lawsuit was filed by the Babylon Bee, a conservative satire website, alongside other plaintiffs. They were represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit legal organization focused on religious liberty and free speech cases.

Plaintiffs argue that satire is integral to public discourse

Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, senior counsel at ADF, served as the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. He praised the decision as a victory for free expression in political dialogue. According to him, new technologies shouldn’t change fundamental rights.

“Making fun of politicians and criticizing the government is a core First Amendment right,” Widmalm-Delphonse stated. He said the court was right in curbing what his team viewed as an overly aggressive form of censorship.

Widmalm-Delphonse stressed the importance of allowing satire—even when digitally altered—within political communication, especially during high-stakes election periods.

Supporters of the law argue for urgency before the election

Despite the court’s decision, proponents of the original legislation defended its intentions. Assemblymember Pellerin said the rapid spread of deepfakes posed a real threat to fair and informed elections.

She noted the legislation aimed to “protect the integrity of our democratic process,” especially given the risks of deceptive content swaying voter opinion in the final days before an election.

Pellerin also expressed appreciation for the governor’s support, saying, “California is taking a stand against the manipulative use of deepfake technology to deceive voters.” She added that rational discourse depends on accurate information.

Judge suggests a more targeted approach is possible

In his decision, Judge Mendez offered alternative legal paths California might consider. He indicated that more narrowly defined laws targeting clearly false or harmful statements could survive judicial scrutiny.

Mendez suggested focusing on content that “actually causes voter interference, coercion, or intimidation,” or restricting the law to provably false factual claims, such as voting times or locations.

However, he found the current version of AB 2839 to be overly broad and vague, leading to potential misuse where satire and parody could be wrongly targeted.

Debate over digital misinformation continues

The ruling also brought into question California’s other related legislation. AB 2655, another law signed by Gov. Newsom in September 2024, also addresses synthetic media content during elections but was not directly reviewed in this lawsuit.

As election cycles increasingly intersect with rapidly evolving technologies, lawmakers across the country face mounting pressure to find ways to curb misinformation without overstepping constitutional boundaries.

This decision is expected to influence how states and federal legislators draft future rules aimed at tackling artificial intelligence in political messaging. The legal and political battles over speech in the digital era are just beginning.