Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Deepfake policy in the United States, 2019 - Present

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Elections Navigation
2025 Election Results
Federal elections
State elections
Local elections
Recalls
AIDLT Icon.png
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.
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."[1]

As of September 12, 2025, 28 states had enacted laws regulating deepfakes used in political communications, and 46 states had enacted laws concerning the creation or distribution of deepfakes depicting sexually explicit content.

This page includes information about deepfake policy in the United States from 2019 to present.

Background

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.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Policy approaches vary as lawmakers and advocates balance concerns about deepfakes with First Amendment free speech considerations and beneficial uses of the technology.[9][10] The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which says its mission is to "defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought," states, "Any government restriction on the expressive use of AI needs to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental purpose, and the regulation must restrict as little expression as is necessary to achieve that purpose."[11][12]

U.S. senators first considered bills specifically mentioning deepfakes in 2018.[13][14] State lawmakers first introduced bills using that term in 2019.

Deepfake laws in the United States

Political communications

As of September 12, 2025, 28 states had enacted laws regulating deepfakes used in political communications, such as campaign advertisements.[15] 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.

Deepfake legislation tracking

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. Ballotpedia’s legislation trackers are your go-to resource for staying on top of key legislative topics. We capture any bill introduced on the topic across all of the 50 state legislatures, and we track the movement of the bill every step of the way.

Enacted bills (current session)

The table below displays bills related to deepfakes enacted during each state's current legislative session.[16]

Introduced bills (current session)

The table below displays bills related to deepfakes introduced during or carried over to each state's current legislative session.[16]

Noteworthy events

U.S. district judge blocks enforcement of California deepfake bills (2024-2025)

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."[17]

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."[18] Kohls' lawsuit stated, "Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right. Plaintiff Kohls brings this suit to defend all Americans’ right to satirize politicians."[18]

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:[19]

“ 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.[20] ”


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.[21]

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.[22] 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."[23]

On June 25, 2025, Mendez ordered the defendants to stay enforcement of AB 2655 through October 25, 2025.[21]

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."[24]

In an order released on August 20, 2025, Mendez wrote:[25]

“

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.[20]

”

On August 29, 2025, Mendez issued an order permanently blocking the state from enforcing AB 2839. Mendez wrote:[26]

“

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).[20]

”

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

Ballotpedia's State of Deepfake Legislation 2025 Annual Report

Ballotpedia published our State of Deepfake Legislation 2025 Annual Report on July 22, 2025, one year after the launch of our Deepfake Legislation Tracker in June 2024. In this report, we provided an update on the status of state legislation intended to regulate deepfakes. To read the 2024 report, click here.

HIGHLIGHTS
As of July 10, 2025:
  • State lawmakers had adopted 64 laws related to deepfakes in 2025, up from the 52 laws enacted by the same date in 2024.
  • The most common topics for laws regulating deepfakes were those addressing sexually explicit material and those dealing with political communications. Other topics included bills regulating tech entities, prohibiting fraud, or addressing property rights.
  • From January to July 2025, the number of states that had enacted laws addressing sexually explicit deepfakes increased from 32 to 45. The number of states with laws regulating political deepfakes increased from 21 to 28.


    • See also

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

    https://ballotpedia.org/AI_deepfake_policy_in_STATE

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Science & Tech Spotlight: Deepfakes," February 2020
    2. ↑ The New York Times, "Teen Girls Confront an Epidemic of Deepfake Nudes in Schools," April 8, 2024
    3. ↑ AP News, "FEC moves toward potentially regulating AI deepfakes in campaign ads," August 10, 2023
    4. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Regulating AI Deepfakes and Synthetic Media in the Political Arena," December 5, 2023
    5. ↑ NBC News, "States turn their attention to regulating AI and deepfakes as 2024 kicks off," January 25, 2024
    6. ↑ AP News, "What to know about how lawmakers are addressing deepfakes like the ones that victimized Taylor Swift," January 31, 2024
    7. ↑ MultiState, "More and More States Are Enacting Laws Addressing AI Deepfakes," April 5, 2024
    8. ↑ Regulations.gov, "Comment on FR Doc # 2023-28232," January 31, 2024
    9. ↑ ACLU of Georgia, "Press Statement: ACLU of Georgia Opposes Bill Criminalizing 'Deep Fakes' about Election Candidates," January 29, 2024
    10. ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Free speech implications surface as experts urge Senate to regulate deepfakes," April 30, 2024
    11. ↑ Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, "FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression," accessed June 26, 2024
    12. ↑ Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, "Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment," accessed May 30, 2024
    13. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.3805 - Malicious Deep Fake Prohibition Act of 2018," accessed June 26, 2024
    14. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.3788 - A bill to require studies on cyberexploitation of employees of certain Federal departments and their families, and for other purposes," accessed June 26, 2024
    15. ↑ Massachusetts House Bill 5100 was enacted on November 20, 2024, and included a repeal of the relevant section on February 1, 2025.
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Bills are organized by most recent action. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's deepfake legislation tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.
    17. ↑ California Legislative Information, "AB-2839 Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.," accessed November 18, 2024
    18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Politico, "Case 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD Document 1," accessed November 18, 2024
    19. ↑ CourtListener, "Case 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD Document 14," accessed November 18, 2024
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 PacerMonitor, "Kohls v. Bonta et al," accessed January 9, 2025 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "kohls" defined multiple times with different content
    22. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order Re: Stipulation for amended stay of enforcement of AB 2655," January 3, 2025
    23. ↑ California Legislative Information, "Assembly Bill No. 2655," accessed January 9, 2025
    24. ↑ Politico, "Elon Musk and X notch court win against California deepfake law," August 5, 2025
    25. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Kohls v. Bonta et al: Order and final judgment and permanent injunction as to AB 2655," August 20, 2025
    26. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Kohls v. Bonta et al: Order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (AB 2839)," August 29, 2025
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Deepfake_policy_in_the_United_States,_2019_-_Present&oldid=10503213"