AI deepfake policy in California

Ballotpedia's AI Deepfake Legislation Tracker
Deepfake policy in the U.S.
Select a state from the list below to read more about deepfake policy and legislation in that state. AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
Annual reports 2025 • 2024

Deepfakes are videos, images, or audio files that have been generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence in order to realistically portray something that did not actually occur. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Deepfakes rely on artificial neural networks, which are computer systems modeled loosely on the human brain that recognize patterns in data. Developing a deepfake photo or video typically involves feeding hundreds or thousands of images into the artificial neural network, ‘training’ it to identify and reconstruct patterns—usually faces."

Public policy organizations, lawmakers, and journalists have expressed concerns related to the use of deepfake technology, including the proliferation of child sexual abuse material and other nonconsensual sexual content, the distribution of deceptive political communications and election disinformation, property rights infringement, harassment, fraud, and threats to national security.

Policy approaches vary as lawmakers and advocates balance concerns about deepfakes with First Amendment free speech considerations and beneficial uses of the technology.

This page includes information about deepfake policy in California.

• As of September 12, 2025, California was one of 28 states that had enacted laws related to deepfakes used in political communications, such as campaign advertisements. In more than half of these states, the law applied to political materials distributed within a certain number of days before an election, and most included exceptions for materials containing a disclosure statement, with varying degrees of specificity regarding what that statement must say and how it must be presented.

• California was one of 46 states that had enacted laws concerning the creation or distribution of deepfakes that depict explicit sexual acts or other sensitive content. Some of these laws specifically addressed the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material, while others addressed the nonconsensual creation and distribution of adult intimate images. Eighteen states had passed laws addressing both.

To view laws enacted in California since 2019, click here.

This page includes the following information about deepfake policy:

• Deepfake legislation in California
• Noteworthy events related to deepfake policy in California
• National context

Deepfake legislation in California

As legislatures across the country consider bills intended to address concerns about deepfake technology, Ballotpedia’s deepfake legislation tracker can help you follow the latest developments in all 50 states.

Enacted legislation

The table below displays bills related to deepfakes enacted in California since 2019.

Current legislation

The table below displays bills related to deepfakes introduced during or carried over to California's current legislative session.

Noteworthy events

U.S. district judge blocks enforcement of California deepfake bill

On October 2, 2024, Senior Judge John Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California blocked enforcement of California AB 2839. According to the legislative counsel's digest, the bill "would prohibit a person, committee, or other entity from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication, as defined, that contains certain materially deceptive content, as defined, with malice, as defined, subject to specified exemptions. The bill would apply this prohibition within 120 days of an election in California and, in specified cases, 60 days after an election."

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the bill into law on September 17, 2024, and it went into immediate effect. On the same day, digital content creator Christopher Kohls filed a lawsuit in the district court, asking the court to rule that AB 2839 and AB 2655, another bill signed on the same day, "violate First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I. Section 2(a) of the California Constitution." Kohls' lawsuit stated, "Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right. Plaintiff Kohls brings this suit to defend all Americans’ right to satirize politicians."

On October 2, Mendez issued an order blocking the state from enforcing AB 2839, with an exception for one part of the statute related to audio content. He wrote:

“

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. Against this backdrop, the Court does not enjoin the state statute at issue in this motion lightly, even on a preliminary basis. 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.

”

Following the October 2 order, lawsuits filed by The Babylon Bee, Rumble Inc., and X Corp. were consolidated with Kohls' lawsuit challenging AB 2839 and AB 2655.

On January 3, 2025, Mendez issued an order blocking enforcement of AB 2655 through June 28, 2025, pursuant to an agreement between all parties in the case. According to the legislative counsel's digest, AB 2655 would require internet platforms to "block the posting of materially deceptive content related to elections in California, during specified periods before and after an election," to "label certain additional content inauthentic, fake, or false during specified periods before and after an election in California," and to "develop procedures for California residents to report content that has not been blocked or labeled in compliance with the act," as well as "[authorizing] candidates for elected office, elected officials, elections officials, the Attorney General, and a district attorney or city attorney to seek injunctive relief against a large online platform for noncompliance with the act."

On June 25, 2025, Mendez ordered the defendants to stay enforcement of AB 2655 through October 25, 2025.

Oral argument was held August 5. According to Politico's Chase DiFeliciantonio, Mendez "struck down [AB 2655] ... [but] declined to give an opinion on the free speech arguments that were central to the plaintiffs’ case, instead citing federal rules for online platforms for his decision ... [and] also said he intended to overrule [AB 2839] ... for violating the First Amendment."

In an order released on August 20, 2025, Mendez wrote:

“

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that AB 2655 violates and is preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), § 230(c)(2)(B), and § 230(e)(3), as-applied to X Corp. and Rumble because those entities are both 'provider[s]' of 'an interactive computer service,' 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), § 230(f)(2), and application of AB 2655 to any such provider of an interactive computer service violates and is preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), § 230(c)(2)(B), and § 230(e)(3). ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing AB 2655, in its entirety, against X Corp. and Rumble. ... IT IS ORDERED that, in light of this Order and Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, the Court does not at this time reach the First and Third Causes of Action in X Corp.’s Complaint ... or Counts One and Two in Rumble’s Complaint.

”

On August 29, 2025, Mendez issued an order permanently blocking the state from enforcing AB 2839. Mendez wrote:

“

California’s AB 2839 strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and does not overcome the constitutional safeguards erected to protect Plaintiffs’ right to speak. To be sure, deepfakes and artificially manipulated media arguably pose significant risks to electoral integrity, but the challenges launched by digital content on a global scale cannot be quashed through censorship or legislative fiat. Just as the government may not dictate the canon of comedy, California cannot pre-emptively sterilize political content. '...In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.' Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 419–20 (1988).

”

As of September 12, 2025, no appeal had been filed.

National context: Deepfake laws in the United States

See also: Deepfake policy in the United States, 2019 - Present

Political communications

As of September 12, 2025, 28 states had enacted laws regulating deepfakes used in political communications, such as campaign advertisements. In more than half of those states, the law applied to political materials distributed within a certain number of days before an election, and most included exceptions for materials containing a disclosure statement, with varying degrees of specificity regarding what that statement must say and how it must be presented.

As of September 12, 2025, three states with laws prohibiting deepfakes from being distributed a certain number of days before an election did not include an exception for materials containing a disclosure statement. Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez blocked enforcement of California AB 2839 on October 2, 2024.

Pornographic materials

As of September 12, 2025, 46 states had enacted laws concerning the creation or distribution of deepfakes that depict explicit sexual acts or other sensitive content. Some of those laws specifically addressed the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material, while others addressed the nonconsensual creation and distribution of adult intimate images. Eighteen states had passed laws addressing both.

See also

Select a state on the map below to read more about deepfake policy and legislation in that state.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

https://ballotpedia.org/AI_deepfake_policy_in_STATE

• Deepfake policy in the United States, 2019 - Present
• Nonconsensual pornography (revenge porn) laws in the United States
• Ballotpedia's Legislation Trackers
• Ballotpedia Email Updates
• Contact us