• by Wendy Davis , 9 hours ago

A federal appellate court on Wednesday refused to revive a challenge to a Minnesota law prohibiting "realistic" deep fakes of politicians.

The move leaves in place a ruling issued in February, when a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by right-wing political commentator Christopher Kohls and state Representative Mary Franson.

The appellate judges didn't give a reason for their refusal to reconsider their earlier opinion.

The Minnesota law, passed in 2023, defines “deep fake” as a video or photo that is “so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct," and is generated by artificial intelligence. The measure provides for criminal penalties, including fines, and allows for enforcement by the Minnesota Attorney General, county attorneys, city attorneys, the person depicted in the “deep fake,” and a candidate for office who “is injured or likely to be injured" by the images.

Kohls and Franson sued two years ago to strike down the law, arguing it's unconstitutional.

In 2024, Kohls used artificial intelligence to create a video of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024. That video falsely presented her as saying, "I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate."

The clip, available on YouTube, is currently labeled as parody and carries the disclaimer "altered or synthetic content."

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Provinzino in Minnesota declined to block the law. She ruled that Kohls lacked “standing” because his content was labeled as parody and therefore wouldn't deceive anyone, and that Franson waited too long after the law took effect to seek an injunction.

Kohls and Franson appealed that ruling to the 8th Circuit, arguing that the law unconstitutionally "criminalizes parody, satire, and core political criticism."

In February, the 8th Circuit sided against them, ruling that Kohl's videos "are not deep fakes under the statute" because they're labeled as parodies. The panel also agreed with Provinzino that Franson wasn't entitled to an immediate injunction because she waited more than one year to sue.

In March, Kohls and Franson sought a new appellate hearing in front of all 11 active judges in the 8th Circuit. Among other arguments, they said the law doesn't include a carve-out for parodies.

"The statutory ban depends only on how 'realistic' the video is, and does not include any exception for accompanying disclaimers," their attorneys argued.

Kohls separately sued over a comparable California state law (AB 2839), which would have prohibited people from posting “materially deceptive” videos of political candidates. A district court judge in California sided with Kohls and blocked enforcement of that statute on First Amendment grounds.