The Election Deep Fakes’ Use of A.I. in California Now Faces Significant Legal Challenges Under California Law

California Governor Newsom just signed 3 landmark proposals at an A.I. conference in San Francisco into State Law.  One bans the use of A.I. to create and circulate false images and videos in political ads close to election day. 2 out of the 3 laws now in place are being challenged legally in California State Court.

One of the challenged laws went into effect immediately and allows any individual to sue for damages over election deep fakes, while the other requires large online social media platforms to remove the alleged deceptive material from their websites. A lawsuit was just filed by a person who created parody videos using altered audio of Presidential candidates, i.e. changing what the candidate was saying, as a joke.

These were simple jokes which were taken away by the new laws allegedly in violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Constitutional right to free speech.  The new litigation claims that anybody now can take legal action over content that another person or company simply doesn’t agree with or like. The governor’s office said that the law does not ban satire or parody content, but it instead requires the disclosure of the use of A.I. within the altered videos or images.

This lawsuit appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S which involves legal action against A.I. laws in the state of California. The law which took effect immediately, targets not only materials that could affect how people vote but also any videos and images that could misrepresent election integrity and also covers things such as material depicting election workers and voting machines, not just political candidates.

The law also makes it illegal to create and publish false materials related to elections 120 days before Election Day and 60 days after. Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction against this bill and enjoined the State from enforcing the statute while it is given more thorough review. We anticipate the steps would be:

1. The State could file a writ challenging the preliminary injunction.
2. Both parties move forward with litigation, which would include discovery and a trial.
3. An appeal to the Court of Appeals and will ultimately appear before the United States Supreme Court.

We will continue to keep you updated on any new developments as they arise pertaining to this significant event.