Tracker Detail
California Elections: Deceptive Media in Advertisements - A.B.2839
Name | Type | Government | Date Initiated | Status | Last Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
California Elections: Deceptive Media in Advertisements - A.B.2839 | Legislation | United States | Feb 14, 2024 | Preliminary injunction | Oct 2, 2024 |
Summary
The bill would amend current state law to prohibit a person, committee, or other entity from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication, as defined, that contains certain materially deceptive content, as defined, with malice, as defined, subject to specified exemptions. This prohibition would apply within 120 days of an election in California and, in specified cases, 60 days after an election.
The bill would further authorize a recipient of materially deceptive content distributed in violation of this section, candidate or committee participating in the election, or elections official, as defined, to file a civil action to enjoin the distribution of the media and to seek damages against the person, committee, or other entity that distributed it, except as specified and require a court to give such proceedings precedence.
This bill would take effect immediately upon enactment.
Updates
May 22, 2024. Passed state assembly by a vote of 59 to 4.
August 29, 2024. Amended version passed state senate by a vote of 32 to 5.
August 30, 2024. Amended version passed state assembly by a vote of 63 to 8.
September 17, 2024. Approved by the governor. Complaint filed on behalf of Christopher Kohls in the US Eastern District Court of California to enjoin the enforcement of the law and declare it "unconstitutional in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 2 of the California Constitution."
October 2, 2024. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the law on the grounds that "AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here." The decision added, "As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting videos such as those posted by Plaintiff, no matter how offensive or inappropriate someone may find them."
