The US District Court for the Eastern District of California on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction, blocking a law allowing the subjects of election-related deepfakes to sue the creators for damages.

The case concerns California Bill 2839, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 17. The law prohibits the malicious distribution of “materially deceptive content” 120 days prior to an election and, in special cases, 60 days following an election. The law also enables recipients of deceptive content to claim damages against the distributor.

Christopher Kohls, known as Mr. Reagan on X, a creator of political content using deepfakes, argued that the law is unconstitutional because it restricts political parody and fails to meet te “least restrictive alternative” standard. The court found that the state’s interest in providing a “free and fair election” was not a narrowly tailored enough interest to outweigh the cost of restricting speech.

In his order of injunction, District Judge John Mendez noted that the First Amendment is designed to “protect the encroachments of speech by governments themselves.” Mendez said courts will have to continue to grapple with the challenges of applying the First Amendment principles as civic engagement and election ads move online to social media and other platforms.

On the other hand, the state argues that deepfakes are classified as defamatory content. The court rejected this argument, finding that the bill went beyond the legal definition of defamation. Mendez observed that instead of “defamation,” the law includes any “false or materially deceptive content” that is “reasonably likely” to cause harm to the reputation to be subject to restriction, without requiring actual harm.

Mendez further cited New York Times v Sullivan, a US Supreme Court case which affirmed that the First Amendment protects deliberate lies with malice about the government. The rationale is to safeguard the people’s right to criticize government and government officials.

In September, David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, contended that the government has no liberty to create a new category of speech outside First Amendment protection. He argued that the legal standard for proving defamation is well-established under the First Amendment.