Musk-Challenged California Anti-Deepfake Law Struck by Judge

A California federal judge struck a state law challenged by Elon Musk’s X Corp. that would have required social media platforms to remove user-reported posts of political candidate “deepfakes” close to elections.

Judge John A. Mendez on Tuesday granted summary judgment to the content creators, online platforms, and satire site that challenged AB 2655, and denied a cross motion for summary judgment to attorneys representing California. Further details on the ruling are forthcoming, said Mendez’s ruling in the Eastern District of California.

AB 2655 is part of a suite of legislation meant to blunt the impact of AI deepfakes on elections that litigants have argued violate First Amendment rights.

The law would “severely chill important political speech,” and unconstitutionally restricts content-moderation speech rights of online platforms, forcing them to censor users and pressuring content creators to self-censor, the plaintiffs argued. They also said the law treats online platforms as publishers of users’ content in violation of the federal Communications Decency Act’s Section 230.

The state had argued the deepfakes regulated by the law are lies unprotected by the First Amendment causing “specific tangible harms.”

The case started with a September 2024 lawsuit from Christopher Kohls, the creator of an AI-generated parody video criticizing former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that Musk reposted on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) responded on X that manipulating a voice, like Kohls’ post did, “should be illegal.”

Another challenged law, AB 2839, which the court preliminarily enjoined in the same order, allows for lawsuits against social media users who post or repost prohibited deepfakes and required labels on posts that are meant as satire or parody. Content creators argued in court filings seeking summary judgment against the law that it’s unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and overly burdensome.

The court took arguments on that law under submission.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, Chavez-Ochoa Law Offices, Alliance Defending Freedom, Downey Brand LLP, and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

The case is Kohls v. Bonta, E.D. Cal., No. 2:24-cv-02527, 8/5/25.