Rumble, a video-sharing platform and cloud services provider, has filed a lawsuit against California’s Attorney General and Secretary of State over AB 2655, “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (signed into law this September).
The legislators who concocted this measure assert that it merely requires online platforms to remove or label content deemed “materially deceptive” about elections, public officials, and candidates for office. Theoretically, the rules only kick in 120 days before an election and 6o days after.
The mandated actions for items deemed “deceptive” by the state’s government have angered Rumble and led to the lawsuit, as there are deep concerns about its abuse to censor free speech. Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
California recently passed two laws that target and punish speakers for posting certain political commentary online. One of those laws, AB 2655, also requires large online platforms like Rumble to act as the government’s censorship police and remove such content from their sites. California is forcing Rumble to alter its speech and censor its users’ speech, while also compelling the platform’s speech, in violation of the First Amendment.“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler. “Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans. Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are—a threat to their existence.”
My Legal Insurrection colleague Jane Coleman reported on an earlier lawsuit brought by a YouTuber, Mr. Reagan. He runs a video site featuring parody videos, such as a fake Kamala Harris campaign ad featuring AI-generated cuts that sound just like her.
Subsequently, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 2839, a related law to AB 2655 passed at the same time. The judge, John Mendez, ruled that the law was overly broad and unconstitutional, siding with the plaintiff’s argument that it violated First Amendment rights. The court found that California has no right to restrict protected speech forms like critique, parody, and satire.
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), which brought the YouTuber’s case, will file another one related to AB2655, which does not go into effect until January 2025.
Iconic satire site The Babylon Bee and California attorney Kelly Chang Rickert, who argued both AB 2655 and AB 2839 threatened her personal blog and social media accounts, had ADF file a lawsuit on their behalf to prevent enforcement. As with “Mr. Reagan,” the one related to AB 2839 was dropped promptly.
Because one of those laws, AB 2839, went into effect immediately, The Babylon Bee and Rickert—as well as a plaintiff in another case—asked the federal judges to immediately put that law on hold. That law applies around election time to censor digitally edited content that is “materially deceptive” and addresses candidates, elected officials, and other election material related to California elections. The law also forces speakers to include a disclaimer when posting satire and imposes severe penalties, allowing anyone who sees the content to sue and obtain attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages.
The Babylon Bee’s case against 2655 has been consolidated with another one, and is proceeding.
Elon Musk, through X Corp., has also filed a similar lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging Cali AB 2655, alleging it violates constitutional protections and federal law while imposing impractical burdens on online platforms.
This case marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of technology, free speech, and government regulation. X Corp.’s complaint argues that AB 2655 undermines First Amendment protections, conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and creates an unworkable framework that risks chilling free expression and stifling innovation.At its core, AB 2655 is an attempt to address the dissemination of “materially deceptive content” during elections. Proponents of the law argue it is necessary to preserve electoral integrity in the digital age, where deepfakes and AI-generated content can spread misinformation at unprecedented speeds. However, X Corp. contends that the law is unconstitutional, overly vague, and imposes burdensome obligations on platforms that are fundamentally unworkable.
Clearly, one prediction I can make about 2025 is that the State of California will be at the epicenter of many legal cases.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY