California Election Deepfake Law (AB 2839)

BadLawCalifornia AB 2839California, United StatesHigh threat
Held unconstitutional; permanent injunction protects named plaintiffs
  1. Introduced
  2. Passed House
  3. Passed Senate
  4. Became Law

Stage 4 of 4: Became Law

California’s election-deepfake restrictions were held unconstitutional in August 2025; the permanent injunction bars enforcement against the named plaintiffs.

Latest update

Held unconstitutional; permanent injunction entered protecting named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta

What it does

AB 2839 restricts materially deceptive election media and imposes disclosure requirements, with civil remedies for violations. On August 29, 2025, the district court held the law unconstitutional in its entirety and permanently barred the defendant officials from enforcing it against the named plaintiffs. The injunction’s stated scope is plaintiff-specific, not an unrestricted statewide order.

What’s at stake

The law made the government the arbiter of whether political parody and manipulated media were deceptive enough to suppress or label. The permanent injunction is an important boundary on efforts to regulate election speech through AI-specific rules.

Our take

AB 2839 showed why a parody exception does not rescue a speech-control law. Speakers still had to satisfy government rules before publishing political expression, and a court ultimately found the scheme discriminated by content, viewpoint, and speaker.

Timeline

Held unconstitutional; permanent injunction entered protecting named plaintiffs in Kohls v. BontaLatest

Preliminarily enjoined by federal court

Signed by Governor Newsom

Introduced in the Assembly

Sponsor

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin

Legal challenges

Kohls v. Bonta

August 29, 2025 summary judgment held AB 2839 unconstitutional in its entirety. The permanent injunction prohibits enforcement by the defendants against the named plaintiffs.