California deepfake law gives victims a direct civil path to sue: people targeted by nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes, candidates hit by deceptive election media, and performers whose digital likenesses are used without permission can each file suit for damages and court orders blocking further distribution. The framework began in 2019 with two statutes, expanded significantly in 2024, and remains almost entirely civil — meaning the remedy is a lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution.
Sexually Explicit Deepfakes: What Section 1708.86 Covers
The central protection for individuals is California Civil Code Section 1708.86, first enacted through AB 602 in 2019 and amended most recently effective January 1, 2026. It creates a civil cause of action against two groups: anyone who creates and intentionally shares digitized sexually explicit material knowing the depicted person didn’t consent, and anyone who shares such material they didn’t create while aware consent was absent.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
“Digitized sexually explicit material” is defined broadly. It reaches any visual or audiovisual work altered through digitization to depict a person nude or appearing to engage in sexual conduct they never performed. Face-swap images, fully synthetic content depicting a real person, and computer-generated nude body parts presented as belonging to the depicted individual all fall inside the statute.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
The statute also names “deepfake pornography services” — websites, apps, or other services whose primary purpose is producing this kind of material — as a distinct category, signaling that dedicated generation platforms are on the legislature’s radar alongside individual bad actors.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
What a Victim Can Recover
Section 1708.86 offers several categories of relief, and they’re cumulative. A prevailing plaintiff can seek compensatory damages, punitive damages when the creator acted with malice, attorney’s fees, and any additional relief the court finds appropriate.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
Punitive damages depend on the statute’s definition of malice: intent to harm the depicted person, or despicable conduct carried out with knowing disregard for that person’s rights. “Despicable conduct” is behavior so vile a reasonable person would look down on it. It’s a high bar written into the law, but the nature of nonconsensual sexually explicit content puts many cases within reach of it.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
How Long You Have to Sue
You have three years to file. The clock runs from the date the unauthorized creation or disclosure was discovered, or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
That discovery rule matters because deepfake content often circulates long before the depicted person learns about it. If someone creates a deepfake of you in January 2025 and you don’t find it until March 2027, your three years runs from the discovery, not the creation.
Consent as the Main Defense
Consent is the most significant defense, and the statute defines it strictly. Written agreement is required, verbal or implied consent doesn’t count, and the writing must be in plain language, describe the sexually explicit material generally, name the work it will appear in, and be signed knowingly and voluntarily.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
The depicted person also gets a cooling-off period. Consent can be rescinded by written notice within three business days, unless one of two things happened first: the person had at least 72 hours to review the agreement before signing, or an authorized representative — an attorney, talent agent, or personal manager — approved the agreement in writing.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code – Section 1708.86
First Amendment protections apply independently. Satire, parody, and political commentary retain constitutional protection as long as they don’t cross into defamation or other independently unlawful conduct.
Election Deepfakes and the 60-Day Window
California Elections Code Section 20010, enacted through AB 730 in 2019, prohibits distributing materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election. The prohibition targets content designed to make it look like a candidate said or did something they didn’t. There’s an exception: content may be distributed if it carries a clear disclosure stating “This [image/video/audio] has been manipulated,” with format rules governing size, duration, and placement.2California Legislative Information. California Elections Code – Section 20010
A candidate whose likeness appears in noncompliant manipulated media can seek injunctive relief and damages.2California Legislative Information. California Elections Code – Section 20010
One thing to know if you’ve read about a broader version of this law: AB 2839, passed in 2024, would have extended the window to 120 days before and 60 days after an election and opened suit to candidates, election officials, and recipients of deceptive content.3California Legislative Information. California AB 2839 A federal judge in the Eastern District of California preliminarily enjoined most of it in October 2024 and ultimately held the statute unconstitutional, finding its content-based restrictions on political speech couldn’t survive strict scrutiny and its disclaimer requirements for satire and parody amounted to compelled speech. The court called the statute “a compendium of traditional First Amendment infirmities.” The practical result is that election deepfake protections in California remain governed by the original 60-day framework in Section 20010.
Digital Replicas of Performers
Two 2024 laws address the entertainment industry directly.
AB 1836 extended California’s existing right-of-publicity protection for deceased personalities — which runs 70 years after death — by making clear that producing or distributing a digital replica of a deceased performer’s voice or likeness in an audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent triggers liability.4California Legislative Information. California AB 1836
AB 2602 addresses living performers through contract law. It makes certain contract terms unenforceable when they authorize using a performer’s digital replica in place of their actual work, unless specific consent and representation requirements are met. The statute defines a digital replica as a computer-generated, highly realistic representation of someone’s voice or visual likeness in a recording or transmission where the person either didn’t actually perform or where their performance was materially altered.5California Legislative Information. California AB 2602
Are There Criminal Penalties?
Not under California’s deepfake-specific statutes. Section 1708.86 and Section 20010 are civil laws. They create rights to sue, not the basis for a prosecutor to file charges. The state has not enacted a deepfake-specific criminal statute carrying jail time or a defined fine schedule.
That doesn’t mean deepfake creators face zero criminal exposure. Depending on what the deepfake was used for, existing criminal statutes covering fraud, identity theft, harassment, extortion, or cyberstalking can apply. Using a deepfake to impersonate someone in a scheme to defraud, for example, could implicate general false personation laws. But if you’re a victim, the primary legal remedy is a civil lawsuit that you file and fund. Attorney’s fee recovery under Section 1708.86 is available if you prevail, but the payoff is damages, not incarceration.
Platforms, Takedowns, and Section 230
Section 1708.86 explicitly carves out conduct protected by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which immunizes online platforms from liability for content posted by their users.6California Legislative Information. California Civil Code Section 1708.86 Courts have applied Section 230 broadly to platform decisions to publish, remove, or edit user content across claims including defamation, invasion of privacy, and fraud. Even when a platform knows deepfake content sits on its servers, federal law generally shields it from civil liability for hosting.
California pushed against that gap in 2024 with AB 2655, the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act,” which requires large online platforms to act against deepfake election content by blocking or labeling it. That’s one of the few California measures placing direct obligations on platforms rather than only on creators or sharers.
For most victims seeking removal, the reliable options are requesting takedowns directly under a platform’s terms of service and filing suit against the individual creator. Some victims have used subpoenas to unmask anonymous creators by compelling platforms or domain registrars to disclose account-holder information, though that step adds cost and time.
Federal Bills That Could Expand Your Options
Two federal bills have drawn the most attention, and neither had been enacted as of early 2025.
The DEFIANCE Act (S. 3696) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual explicit deepfakes, letting them seek monetary damages and court-ordered removal.7Congress.gov. DEFIANCE Act of 2024 – S.3696
The NO FAKES Act, reintroduced in 2025, would establish a federal intellectual property right for every person to control digital replicas of their own voice and image, with protections extending to families after death. It would create remedies against anyone who knowingly creates, posts, or profits from unauthorized digital copies, while providing safe harbors for platforms that promptly remove offending material.8Representative Maria Salazar. Congresswoman Salazar Introduces the NO FAKES Act
If either becomes law, California victims would gain a federal cause of action alongside their state remedies, which could simplify cases when deepfakes cross state lines or involve out-of-state platforms. Until then, California’s statute-by-statute framework is the most detailed set of protections a victim has to work with.