California does not have a single misinformation law. The state regulates false speech through a patchwork of statutes spread across the Elections Code, the Business and Professions Code, and the Civil and Penal Codes, each targeting a specific harm: a deceptive ad, a fake polling place notice, a doctored campaign video, a licensed professional’s false claim. The most prominent recent effort, a 2024 statute aimed at AI-generated election deepfakes, was partially blocked by a federal judge within weeks of taking effect. That pattern of legislating narrowly and then colliding with the First Amendment defines how California handles the problem.
The 2024 Deepfake Law Most People Are Asking About
In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed AB 2839, which prohibits distributing “materially deceptive content” about candidates, election officials, or voting equipment during a window starting 120 days before any California election.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 2839 The law targets audio or video digitally created or altered so that it falsely appears to be an authentic recording of what someone said or did.
A violation requires “malice,” which the statute defines as distributing the content while knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for its truth.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 2839 The content must also be “reasonably likely” to harm a candidate’s reputation, affect their electoral prospects, or undermine confidence in election results. The remedy is civil, not criminal: candidates, campaigns, and election officials can sue for an injunction to stop distribution.
The law lasted about two weeks before running into constitutional trouble. On October 2, 2024, U.S. District Judge John Mendez issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement, finding AB 2839 likely violates the First Amendment. He wrote that “most of AB 2839 acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas.” The California Attorney General appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case remains pending.
A companion statute, AB 2655, takes a different angle by placing obligations on large social media platforms rather than individual speakers. It requires platforms to block or label materially deceptive election content during specified periods before and after California elections, and it exempts satire, parody, and content from news organizations.
False Information About How to Vote
Separate from the deepfake rules, the Elections Code reaches false information about the mechanics of voting. Section 18302 makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly distribute materials to voters that contain false details about where, when, or how to vote.2California Legislative Information. California Elections Code 18302 The law covers false polling place locations, incorrect election dates, wrong information about voter registration, and misleading details about mail-in ballot procedures. Any method of distribution counts: mail, phone calls, text messages, online posts.
Serious violations require prosecutors to prove “actual knowledge and intent to deceive,” not just carelessness.2California Legislative Information. California Elections Code 18302 Someone sharing wrong polling place information they genuinely believed was correct would not meet the threshold. That intent bar is why these cases are rarely brought.
A narrower rule, Section 18351, targets candidates for nonpartisan office who knowingly include false statements of material fact in their official candidate statement with intent to mislead voters. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,000, with no jail time.3California Legislative Information. California Elections Code 18351
False Advertising and Unfair Business Practices
California’s oldest and most frequently enforced misinformation statutes are commercial. The False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17500, makes it illegal to publicly disseminate any untrue or misleading statement in connection with selling goods, services, or property. A criminal conviction requires showing the person knew, or reasonably should have known, the advertising was false. The penalty is a misdemeanor carrying up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.4California Legislative Information. California Business and Professions Code 17500
The Unfair Competition Law in Section 17200 casts a wider net. It defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice, plus any deceptive or misleading advertising.5California Legislative Information. California Business and Professions Code 17200 Its text contains no intent or knowledge requirement, and California courts have treated it as essentially a strict liability standard. The tradeoff is that UCL violations carry only civil remedies like injunctions and restitution, not jail time.
Discipline for Licensed Professionals
Licensed professionals face a separate layer of accountability through their governing boards. The Medical Board of California can investigate and discipline physicians who make false representations or misrepresent scientific facts, with sanctions ranging from citations and public reprimands to license suspension or permanent revocation.
The most visible attempt to use that authority against misinformation specifically was Assembly Bill 2098, signed in September 2022. It declared that a physician who disseminates “misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19” is committing unprofessional conduct, defining misinformation as false information contradicted by “contemporary scientific consensus” about the virus, its prevention and treatment, and vaccine safety.6California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 2098 – Physicians and Surgeons: Unprofessional Conduct
Physicians challenged the law as unconstitutionally vague. The Legislature effectively conceded the point. On September 30, 2023, Governor Newsom signed SB 815, which repealed the COVID misinformation provision entirely.7California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 815 – Healing Arts The underlying board authority to discipline physicians for false claims remains, but it no longer rests on a statute that tries to define “misinformation” as a category.
What Social Media Platforms Have to Disclose
AB 587 regulates what platforms do about content rather than what individuals say. It requires social media companies to submit semiannual Terms of Service Reports to the California Attorney General, detailing their content moderation policies and how they enforce them.8California Department of Justice. AB 587 – Terms of Service Reports The Attorney General publishes the reports in a searchable public repository.
The law does not tell platforms what content to allow or remove. It operates purely through disclosure: if a platform claims it removes misinformation, the report should reflect what that means in practice and how consistently the policy is applied.
If You Get Sued for Something You Said
California has some of the country’s strongest protections for people who get sued over their speech. Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, allows anyone targeted by a lawsuit arising from their exercise of free speech on a public issue to file a special motion to strike the case early.9California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 The motion must be filed within 60 days of being served with the complaint.
Once filed, the burden shifts to the person who brought the lawsuit to show a reasonable probability of winning. If they cannot, the case is dismissed. A defendant who wins the motion is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs from the plaintiff. That fee-shifting is what discourages people and companies from filing meritless defamation suits designed to silence critics. The protection covers statements made in official proceedings, statements connected to issues under government review, and statements made in public forums about issues of public interest.9California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16
Why So Many of These Laws Keep Getting Struck Down
Every California misinformation law operates in the shadow of the First Amendment. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held there is no blanket exception to the First Amendment for false statements of fact.10Justia. United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 The government cannot punish a statement simply because it is false. To regulate false speech, the state has to show it falls into a historically recognized category of unprotected expression, like fraud, defamation, or true threats, where the falsehood causes a direct and identifiable harm.
Any law that targets speech based on its content faces strict scrutiny, the most demanding legal test. California’s commercial speech rules survive because deceptive advertising has always been regulable. Election laws targeting false voting logistics survive because the harm is concrete and the scope is narrow. Professional licensing rules survive because regulating the competence of licensed practitioners is a well-established government power.
Where California keeps stumbling is the middle ground: speech that is false and arguably harmful but not tied to a commercial transaction, a specific professional duty, or verifiable election mechanics. AB 2098’s repeal and AB 2839’s preliminary injunction both illustrate the same lesson. A law that depends on an official deciding what counts as “misinformation” on contested scientific or political questions will almost certainly be challenged, and the challenger will usually have the stronger constitutional argument.