• by Wendy Davis , March 19, 2026

A California law targeting "deep fakes" in political ads should be permanently blocked, numerous outside groups including journalists and First Amendment watchdogs are telling a federal appellate court.

The law "would impoverish public discourse by interfering with the ability of journalists to gather and publish information online," the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argues in a proposed friend-of-the-court brief filed Wednesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The advocacy group -- along with a broad array of other organizations, including the tech organization NetChoice, right-wing Washington Legal Foundation and think tanks Cato Institute and TechFreedom -- is weighing in on California's Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act (AB 2655).

That law, enacted in 2024, would require large online platforms to block “materially deceptive” content -- defined to include anything portraying political candidates as saying something they didn't say, and “reasonably likely” to harm candidates' reputations or their chances of winning.

The statute exempts some online news newspapers and magazines from the requirement to block deep fakes -- but only if those outlets clearly label the material as fake.

The law also says it exempts "satire" and "parody."

California passed the measure soon after Musk shared a video of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris that was created with artificial intelligence. The video, by right-wing political commentator Christopher Kohls, falsely presented her as saying, "I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate."

Elon Musk's X Corp, conservative video platform Rumble and others sued in November 2024 to block the statute. X argued in its court papers that the law would "inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary."

U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez in Sacramento struck down the law last year, ruling that it was overridden by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes platforms from liability for content posted by users.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit.

The outside groups filing friend-of-the-court briefs argue both that Section 230 overrides the law, and that the statute violates the First Amendment.

"The free flow of information online is invaluable because it allows news about emerging situations to be gathered quickly, or even in real time, and allows reporting to be distributed expeditiously and widely," the Reporters Committee and nonprofit First Amendment Coalition write.

"A law like AB 2655 that would stanch that flow is thus dangerous for the press and for the public that depends on the news media to keep it informed," they add.

Those organizations also argue that requiring social platforms to block deep fakes will indirectly harm newspapers and magazines.

"The press relies on large social media platforms to both circulate and gather news," the groups write. "News stories shared on the internet -- either by the outlets themselves or interested readers -- could face state-mandated removal if they reproduce purportedly covered material."

The Cato Institute likewise urges the appellate court to block the law.

"Political speech since the American Founding -- including speech by the Founders themselves -- has often featured hyperbole, polemic, and what modern observers might call 'misinformation,'" the Cato Institute wrote in its friend-of-the-court brief. "The Framers understood that such speech could mislead. Yet they nonetheless ratified the First Amendment to ensure that public debate remained a powerful check on government power."

The watchdog Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and think tank TechFreedom add in a separate brief that the law is "plainly an unconstitutional content-based speech regulation."

"California has let fear get the better of it," those groups write. "Rather than hewing to the bedrock principles of free expression ... the state now asserts breathtaking authority to regulate and censor political speech that it deems insufficiently true."