In a landmark decision that has sent ripples through the legal, political, and tech communities, a federal judge has struck down two California laws aimed at regulating the use of deepfake images and videos in political campaigns. The ruling, delivered on September 2, 2025, by U.S. District Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California, sided with satirical news site The Babylon Bee and other plaintiffs who challenged the constitutionality of the legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024.
The contested bills, AB 2655 and AB 2839, were part of California’s recent efforts to address the growing threat of generative AI-driven disinformation in elections. As described in the official fact sheet for AB 2839, the legislation was crafted in response to mounting fears that "disinformation powered by generative AI will pollute our information ecosystems like never before." The fact sheet warned, "Those trying to influence campaigns—conspiracy theorists, foreign states, online trolls, and even candidates themselves—are already creating and distributing deepfake images, audio, and video content, in the US and around the world. This generative AI-fueled disinformation can affect voter behavior and undermine faith in our elections."
Governor Newsom’s signature on the bills followed several high-profile incidents, including a spoof campaign ad shared by Elon Musk that lampooned then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The ad, widely circulated online, prompted Musk to quip that he had consulted with "Professor Suggon Deeznutz" and had been assured that "parody is still legal in America." The satirical site The Babylon Bee also entered the fray, producing its own fake campaign video in response to the legislation.
AB 2655 required "large online platforms" to block the posting of "materially deceptive content related to elections in California, during specified periods before and after an election." The law defined such content as "audio or visual media that is digitally created or modified, and that includes, but is not limited to, deepfakes." The scope was broad enough to potentially encompass a wide array of political speech, including, as Breitbart News noted, misleading claims made by politicians themselves.
AB 2839, meanwhile, specifically targeted deepfakes that portrayed federal, state, or local candidates as "doing or saying something that the candidate did not do or say if the content is reasonably likely to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate." While the law included exceptions for satire, parody, and news reporting, these exceptions only applied if the deepfake was accompanied by a visible disclaimer.
It was this disclaimer requirement that became a central focus of the legal challenge. The Babylon Bee and other plaintiffs argued that the mandate to label satirical or parodic content as such would undermine the very nature of satire. On Friday, Judge Mendez concurred, writing in his decision that AB 2839 "discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech."
"Put simply, a mandatory disclaimer for parody or satire would kill the joke," Mendez stated plainly. He went on to emphasize that "novel mediums of speech and even low-brow humor have equal entitlement to First Amendment protection and the principles undergirding the freedom of expression do not waver when technological changes occur." According to his ruling, "The satirical videos and posts that Plaintiffs proliferate to critique public officials squarely constitute speech on public issues, which occupies the ‘highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,’ and is granted special protection."
Judge Mendez was equally critical of AB 2655. As reported by The Washington Times, he found that the bill violated online platforms’ immunity under the Communications Decency Act—a federal law that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by users. In his view, the state’s attempt to compel platforms to act as "censorship czars" by blocking a broad category of speech was an overreach and incompatible with fundamental free speech rights.
In his written opinion, Mendez noted, "Rather than targeting content that procures tangible harms or materially benefits a speaker, AB 2839 attempts to stifle speech before it occurs or actually harms anyone as long as it is ‘reasonably likely’ to do so and it allows almost anyone to act as a censorship czar. AB 2839’s expansive terms capture even satire or parody videos since the law does not require that the parody in fact does fool or mislead someone."
The judge’s ruling marks another legal setback for Governor Newsom, who has previously faced criticism for policies that courts later deemed to violate constitutional rights. Critics have pointed out that Newsom, who often positions himself as a defender of freedom against political opponents, has at times enacted laws that run afoul of First Amendment protections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, his administration’s restrictions on religious gatherings were also struck down in court.
The outcome of the case has reignited a national debate over the balance between combating disinformation and protecting free expression. Supporters of the now-invalidated laws argue that the unchecked spread of deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation represents a genuine threat to the integrity of elections. They contend that without legislative action, malicious actors could erode public trust and manipulate voter behavior on an unprecedented scale.
Opponents, however, maintain that the laws went too far, casting too wide a net and imposing burdensome requirements even on clearly protected forms of speech such as satire and parody. As Judge Mendez observed, "the State’s contention that parody and satire are excepted is unpersuasive because AB 2839 … imposes a disclaimer requirement on parody or satire that is independently suspect."
The court’s decision was welcomed by free speech advocates and content creators alike. The Babylon Bee, known for its irreverent and often controversial takes on public figures, celebrated the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. The ruling also drew attention from major technology platforms, which had expressed concerns about their ability to comply with the vague and far-reaching mandates of the laws.
In the wake of the decision, legal experts are divided on what comes next. Some predict that California lawmakers may attempt to draft new, narrower legislation that targets genuinely harmful deepfakes without impinging on constitutionally protected speech. Others warn that any future attempts to regulate political content in the digital age will need to tread carefully to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to this latest judicial rebuke.
For now, the ruling stands as a reminder that, even in an era of rapidly evolving technology, the principles underpinning free expression remain robust. As Judge Mendez concluded, technological advances may change the medium, but not the fundamental rights at stake.