Docket number: 24-cv-2527 (E.D. Cal.)
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI) and Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota’s law, § 609.771, “Use of Deep Fake Technology to Influence and Election,” which bans sharing AI-generated content intended to influence elections.
The lawsuit is the second HLLI has filed on behalf of Mr Reagan, a political commentator on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) against state laws that purport to ban AI-generated political satire, which violate political free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.. The previous lawsuit aimed against California’s similar law remains pending.
In this suit HLLI and UMLC represent Mr Reagan and Rep. Mary Franson of Minnesota House District 12B. Mr Reagan earns a livelihood from his content, and Rep. Franson communicates with her constituents and party members on social media. Both hope to continue posting and sharing videos and political memes online, including those created in part with AI.
Both plaintiffs contend that § 609.771 violates their First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, which has always included parody, yet the law includes no exception for parody.
In July 2024 Mr Reagan posted a parody campaign video on his social media channels critiquing Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential candidacy. Mr Reagan made the video using an AI-generated voice, and labeled it as parody. Many viewers enjoyed the parody, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom found Elon Musk’s posting of the video “misleading,” and signed a bill to outlaw it. Others claim that the realistic voice of Harris in a parody deceives viewers. U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D–MN) claimed it violated X’s policy against “media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm.”
Minnesota’s § 609.771 purports to criminalize “realistic” deepfakes of candidates for office in Minnesota disseminated before an election without the candidate’s consent. It was expanded in 2024 to ban political deepfakes 90 days before a party’s nominating convention and to disqualify candidates convicted of sharing deepfakes from holding office.
This penalty is independently unconstituti0n, and could only subvert the democratic will of the people when imposed. Rep. Franson challenges this new provision, which appears completely unique.
HLLI intends to move for a motion for preliminary injunction shortly.
Similar litigation
Kohls previously filed suit against California officials (Kohls v. Bonta) challenging a similar bill, where Gov. Gavin Newsom singled out Kohls parody as illegal under a newly-enacted law.
Case Documents
| Description | |
| Sep 27, 2024 | VERIFIED COMPLAINT of Christopher Kohls and Mary Franson |