During the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral race, viral AI-generated videos depicted candidate Spencer Pratt as a lightsaber-wielding Jedi and Batman confronting a Joker-inspired Mayor Karen Bass.
Those videos quickly became a flashpoint in the national debate over how states should regulate artificial intelligence in political advertising.
The Pratt campaign videos illustrate that how states regulate AI in political ads matters as much as whether they regulate at all, according to legal analysis by Linley Wilson of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky and Josefiak PLLC.
California and Arizona have taken sharply different approaches, with consequences that are already reshaping the legal landscape for AI political content.
California pursued broad, content-based bans through three bills — AB 2355, AB 2839, and AB 2655 — but courts found the legislation went far beyond constitutional limits.
AB 2839 banned the knowing distribution of “materially deceptive” AI-generated election content and allowed virtually any recipient, not just a depicted candidate, to sue for damages and injunctive relief.
AB 2655 required large online platforms to block “materially deceptive” political deepfakes and label certain content as inauthentic during windows before and after elections.
Both AB 2839 and AB 2655 were invalidated in Kohls v. Bonta, 797 F. Supp. 3d 1177, with the district court finding AB 2839 “discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech.”
The court also ruled that AB 2655 is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decision now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
The Kohls court found AB 2839 was not narrowly tailored because it swept up protected speech, including satire, parody, and political commentary, alongside genuinely fraudulent content.
When a supporter creates a stylized AI video depicting a candidate as a superhero, as with the Pratt videos, that constitutes political commentary rather than fraud under First Amendment principles.
Arizona, by contrast, enacted two complementary laws — SB 1359 and HB 2394 — built on targeted disclosure requirements and carefully limited civil remedies.
SB 1359 requires creators of “deceptive and fraudulent deepfakes” depicting political candidates to clearly disclose the content was AI-generated, but only within 90 days before an election.
Penalties under SB 1359 are modest, set at $10 per day for the first fifteen days and $25 per day thereafter, and the law expressly exempts satire and parody.
HB 2394 gives candidates a right to sue over digital impersonation against a publisher within two years, with the primary remedy being a court declaration rather than monetary damages.
Courts under HB 2394 must rule on emergency relief within two business days, providing a swift but proportionate mechanism for addressing genuine harm.
Where California targeted the vague category of “materially deceptive” content and captured satire in its sweep, Arizona narrows its focus to content that is both deceptive and fraudulent within a defined pre-election window.
Where California allowed virtually anyone to sue for damages, Arizona limits claims to the depicted person, reducing the risk that litigation threats will chill legitimate political speech.
Arizona’s framework leaves untouched the broad universe of AI-generated political expression, including satire, commentary, creative advocacy, and the kind of fan-made videos that defined the Pratt campaign.
As more states legislate ahead of the 2026 midterms and beyond, legal practitioners argue lawmakers should embrace Arizona’s narrow disclosure model and challenge overbroad laws like California’s in court.