Actual Malice
Distributing false media with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
How the laws define this
Both California Elections Code § 20010 and California AB 730 - Deceptive Audio/Visual Media in Elections agree that the core of actual malice is acting with knowledge that information or a statement was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This establishes a baseline standard centered on knowing falsity or reckless disregard. The principal divergence lies in the scope of conduct and legal application described by each instrument. Under California Elections Code § 20010, the standard applies specifically to the distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media. By contrast, California AB 730 - Deceptive Audio/Visual Media in Elections frames actual malice as a legal standard primarily used in defamation cases involving statements. Compliance professionals must therefore distinguish between actions involving the distribution of deceptive audio or visual media under the elections code and general statements evaluated under defamation standards.
Synthesised from the 2 statutory definitions below. Each one is quoted in full, with its source.
How jurisdictions differ
What is distinctive in each definition, binding law in force first.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Status | What is distinctive |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, United States | Elections: deceptive audio or visual media (California Elections Code § 20010) | In Force | Limits actual malice to distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media in elections, extending the prohibition until January 1, 2027. |
| California, United States | California AB 730 - Deceptive Audio/Visual Media in Elections | In Force (Amended) | Broadens to the general legal standard from defamation while applying it specifically to malicious deepfake distribution of political candidates within 60 days of an election. |
What it triggers
- In California elections, it prohibits distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media including deepfakes until January 1, 2027.source
- Under California AB 730, it prohibits malicious distribution of deepfakes of political candidates within 60 days of an election, allowing for injunctive relief and damages.source
Definitions (2)
In the context of this law, it means the distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media with knowledge that the information is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A legal standard, primarily used in defamation cases, meaning the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Not to be confused with
Actual malice focuses on knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity in media, while reckless distribution emphasizes disregard for harm to reputation or voter behavior.
Questions and answers
What consequences follow from actual malice in California elections?
It prohibits distribution of materially deceptive audio or visual media with actual malice. This includes deepfakes and extends until January 1, 2027.
How does California AB 730 use actual malice?
It prohibits malicious distribution of deepfakes of political candidates within 60 days of an election. Remedies include injunctive relief and damages.
Related Terms
Malice
Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth....
Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media
Synthetic media that falsely depicts reality, misleading a reasonable person about appearance, action, or speech....
MATERIALLY DECEPTIVE MEDIA
AI-produced media that falsely depicts real people and is likely believed....
Materially deceptive audio or visual media
Media intentionally manipulated to seem authentic and alter a viewer's impression....
Reckless Distribution
Disseminating deceptive media with disregard for the risk of harming a candidate's reputation or influencing voter behavior....