Law / United States / 
California
AB 2655, Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act
Cal. Elec. Code Sections 20510 to 20520
An AI transparency rule binding private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Content labelling
- Setting the rule reaches
- Elections
What it requires
- Held preempted by Section 230 and struck down, with the State's appeal pending, so read this as context rather than a live duty
- As enacted it required large online platforms to remove or, in the alternative, label materially deceptive AI-generated content about a candidate or elections official inside windows around an election
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. ) (recorded ).
Who enforces it
Settledness
The final judgment permanently enjoins the Attorney General and the Secretary of State from enforcing AB 2655 against X Corp. and Rumble.
- As of
- Case link
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02527/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02527-24.pdf
- Case citation
- Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. )
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- Does AB 2655 remain enforceable against a large online platform other than X Corp. and Rumble, given that the permanent injunction runs "against X Corp. and Rumble"?
What this law does
As enacted, required large online platforms to remove or, in the alternative, label materially deceptive AI-generated content about a candidate or elections official within windows around an election.
The same district judge (Mendez, E.D. Cal.) held this statute preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and did not reach the First Amendment question, with final judgment entered alongside the AB 2839 ruling; because the holding is preemption-based rather than a discretionary injunction, struck down is the more precise status than enjoined, though the practical enforcement posture is the same.
The State's appeal is pending in the same Ninth Circuit docket as AB 2839 (No. 25-6138), briefing complete , no decision issued as of the date shown (). This is litigation-aware status: the statute does not bind today.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 1 court ruling.
What each ruling held, what it means for an app, and whether it still stands are premium data, in the Plus, Pro and Enterprise plans.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates audio with AI, generates images with AI or generates video with AI.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .