California Social Media Law Targeting Deepfakes Struck Down by Federal Judge
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A California law aimed at combating the spread of deceptive political content on social media has been struck down by a federal judge, who ruled that it conflicts with federal law protecting online platforms. Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez sided with social media companies like X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and Rumble, declaring that the state law, known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (A.B. 2655), is preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA provides immunity to online service providers for content posted by third parties. Judge Mendez’s ruling, delivered from the bench on Tuesday, effectively nullifies the state law, preventing its enforcement against qualifying parties in the lawsuit, including X Corp. and Rumble.
The now-invalidated law required large social media platforms to remove “materially deceptive content” related to political candidates, elections officials, and elected officers. It was specifically designed to address the growing concern over deepfakes, which are manipulated videos or audio recordings that can be used to spread disinformation and mislead voters. Proponents of the law argued that these deepfakes pose a significant threat to the integrity of elections. However, social media companies contended that the law unconstitutionally compels them to censor content and violates their First Amendment rights. They also argued that complying with the state law would expose them to liability for content they did not create, directly contradicting the protections afforded by the CDA.
Judge Mendez’s decision focused primarily on the preemption argument, concluding that the state law directly clashed with the CDA. He stated that the entire law is preempted and cannot be salvaged. While the judge acknowledged First Amendment concerns, he did not base his ruling on constitutional grounds. The judge’s decision reinforces the principle that federal law generally supersedes conflicting state laws. This legal doctrine, known as preemption, ensures uniformity and prevents a patchwork of regulations across the country. In this case, the judge determined that California’s attempt to regulate online content related to elections collided with the existing federal framework established by the CDA.
The ruling leaves California with limited options for regulating deepfakes and other forms of deceptive political content online. While the state could appeal the decision, Judge Mendez’s pointed criticism of the law’s vagueness suggests that any revised legislation would need to be more narrowly tailored to avoid further legal challenges. The judge emphasized that laws impacting First Amendment rights must be specific and avoid chilling legitimate speech. He cautioned the state legislature to be more meticulous in drafting laws, particularly those that touch on sensitive areas like online content moderation and political speech.
The legal battle doesn’t end with A.B. 2655. A similar California law, A.B. 2839, is also being challenged by social media companies and other plaintiffs. This law prohibits false or misleading digitally manipulated communications targeting election officials and candidates within four months of an election. Judge Mendez expressed serious concerns about A.B. 2839 as well, suggesting it could have a chilling effect on speech by potentially exposing anyone who shares such content to lawsuits. He questioned whether the law provided sufficient clarity on what constitutes a “false or misleading” communication and whether less restrictive means were available to address the concerns it aimed to address. He also raised the issue of compelled speech, arguing that requiring content creators to label manipulated media as satire or parody infringes on their First Amendment rights.
The ruling has significant implications for the ongoing debate over the regulation of online content. It underscores the tension between the need to combat disinformation and the importance of protecting free speech. As deepfakes and other forms of manipulated media become increasingly sophisticated, lawmakers face the challenge of finding ways to address the potential harm they pose without unduly restricting online expression. Judge Mendez’s decision highlights the complexities of this balancing act and emphasizes the need for carefully crafted legislation that respects both First Amendment principles and the need to ensure fair and transparent elections. The case also underscores the crucial role of the CDA in shaping the legal landscape of online content moderation, as it continues to shield online platforms from liability for user-generated content while also prompting debate about its impact on efforts to combat harmful online activity.