Two Years of California AB 2839: Deepfakes and Elections

Exactly two years ago today, on September 17, 2024, California Assembly Bill 2839 took effect, establishing one of the nation's most targeted legal frameworks against AI-generated deceptive political media. Designed to safeguard election integrity during high-stakes campaign cycles, the Act introduced swift civil remedies against distributors of malicious deepfakes targeting political candidates, election staff, and voting procedures.

What's changing — substance

California AB 2839 bans any person, committee, or entity from knowingly distributing materially deceptive media depicting political candidates, election officials, or voting systems during defined election windows. The statutory prohibition targets digitally created or altered images, audio, or video shared with "malice"—defined as actual knowledge that the content is false, or a reckless disregard for whether it is true or false. To trigger liability, the content must be likely to harm a candidate's electoral prospects or reputation, or deceive voters regarding voting procedures and election reliability.

Under Elections Code Sec. 20012, the Act enforces strict time-based restrictions. The ban applies within 120 days prior to an election for content depicting political candidates. For material targeting election officials or voting procedures, the window expands from 120 days before an election through 60 days after.

Rather than imposing criminal penalties, AB 2839 established a civil enforcement model. Impacted candidates, campaign committees, election officials, and registered voters who receive deceptive content can file civil lawsuits against distributors. Courts can grant immediate preliminary injunctions to halt media distribution, award general or special monetary damages, and order losing parties to pay reasonable attorney's fees. Furthermore, the statute mandates that California courts give civil suits brought under Elections Code Sec. 20012 docket priority over other standard civil matters, requiring plaintiffs to meet a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof.

Satire and parody are not granted automatic blanket immunity under the law. Satirical media or political cartoons must feature clear, prominent disclaimer labels explicitly stating that the content has been digitally manipulated or generated.

However, the legal landscape surrounding the Act shifted rapidly shortly after it took effect. On October 2, 2024, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in Kohls v. Bonta (consolidated with challenges brought by X Corp., Rumble, and The Babylon Bee). The court ruled that key provisions of the law likely violate First Amendment free speech protections. As a result, civil enforcement under AB 2839 has remained largely paused while constitutional litigation makes its way through the federal appellate courts.

Who is affected — jurisdictions, sectors, sizes

AB 2839 applies strictly at the state level within California, binding any individual or organization that distributes political communications to California voters across any medium. The scope spans traditional print advertising, direct mailers, robocalls, SMS text marketing, television broadcasts, and online digital media platforms.

Because liability attaches to distributors who act with statutory malice, the law touches multiple sectors regardless of entity size:

• Political Campaigns and PACs: Campaign organizations, independent expenditure committees, and political consultants must ensure political ads do not contain unauthorized, digitally manipulated portrayals of opposition candidates or election administrators.
• Digital Media Creators and Advertisers: Creative agencies, political influencers, and digital media strategists generating promotional content within California must carefully evaluate synthetic media tools.
• Publishers and Distribution Outlets: While third-party platforms often seek federal safe harbors, entities involved in direct distribution or amplification of political advertisements face compliance risk if disclaimers are absent or content is blatantly altered.

Three things to do this week — concrete actions

Although enforcement mechanisms remain subject to active federal litigation, organizations engaging in California political communications should maintain rigorous digital compliance controls.

1. Audit creative assets against statutory windows: Review political media production pipelines to ensure content distributed within 120 days of an election does not contain unauthorized synthetic alterations of candidates or election staff, aligning with restrictions set out in Elections Code Sec. 20012.
2. Standardize disclaimer formatting for satirical content: Ensure all humorous, exaggerated, or altered political media includes explicit, highly legible disclaimers indicating digital modification to prevent misunderstandings and lower legal exposure.
3. Monitor regional judicial developments: track federal court rulings involving California's election deepfake laws to stay ahead of sudden changes in injunction status or statutory enforcement readiness.

Related context — cross-link to other regulations briefly

AB 2839 represents one pillar of California's multi-pronged statutory push to regulate synthetic media in public affairs. To understand the broader legislative landscape, consider these related measures:

• California AB 2655 - Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024: Imposes obligations on large online platforms to remove or block deceptive election-related deepfakes during campaign windows.
• California Elections Code § 20010: Establishes foundational state standards regarding deceptive audio or visual media used in political messaging.
• California AB 730 - Deceptive Audio/Visual Media in Elections: An earlier statutory precursor that prohibited distribution of materially deceptive audio or video media depicting candidates within 60 days of an election.

Note: this article was drafted by AI - Google Gemini