Kohls v. Bonta

Docket number: 24-at-1196 (E.D. Cal.) (temporary docket number)

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Christopher Kohls, known as “Mr. Reagan,” the creator satirical political videos, including one called out by Gov. Gavin Newsom as being “illegal” under the bills he signed on September 17, 2024.

Minutes after Newsom signed the bills, HLLI filed suit on behalf of Kohls in the Eastern District of California. The suit challenges the constitutionality of California’s newly enacted bills: “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024” (AB 2655), and “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements” (AB 2839).

AB 2655 enlists social media companies to censor their users’ protected political speech that is created using Generative AI tools to spoof the likeness of political candidates running for office. It imposes a reporting and take-down regime on large online platforms like YouTube and X (where Kohls posts his content) for “deceptive content,” which goes into effect January 1.

AB 2839 goes into effect immediately and purports to ban all election communication that uses  artificial intelligence (AI) to portray candidates for office as “doing or saying something that the candidate did not do or say.” While the title of the bill refers to “advertisements,” in fact it covers all “election communication,” including political and satire, which are protected under core First Amendment principles. AB 2839 contains no exception for satire and parody—the legislature removed this exception in coordination with Newsom’s office, and replaced them with a labelling requirement that would require a disclaimer so large it could not even fit on Kohls videos.

The lawsuit arises from a video Kohls posted on July 26, 2024, lampooning Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential candidacy. Kohl made the video using an AI-generated narration in the voice of Harris, which said absurd things like “I was selected as the ultimate diversity hire… so if you criticize anything I say you’re both sexist and racist.” To avoid all doubt, Kohls labeled it as parody. Nevertheless, California Governor Gavin Newsom shortly thereafter denounced the video on X and endorsed laws that prohibits certain forms of political satire.

The problem is that, as Elon Musk said: “I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America.” (For the benefit of Gov. Newsom and anyone else unable to detect humor, no such professor exists, but political parody is in fact protected by the First Amendment.)

Because the bills use undefined and vague statutory language, they grant California broad discretion to determine what constitutes impermissible “materially deceptive.” This creates a chilling effect on free speech, particularly for political commentators like Kohls, who use satire to critique public figures, and rely on social media viewership for their livelihood. Mr. Kohls’ satire videos, which have garnered millions of views, are precisely the kind of speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect. AB 2655 and AB 2839 undermine the democratic processes it purports to safeguard.

The lawsuit seeks a judgment that the bills are unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its enforcement, so that Mr. Kohls may be able to share his content without fear of censorship or legal retaliation.

On September 18, HLLI filed a motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of Kohls. HLLI expects a decision sometime after the reply brief is filed on September 26 under the schedule suggested by the district court.

Case Documents