Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws

Online influencer "Mr Reagan" accuses California of bullying humorists.

After California passed laws cracking down on AI-generated deepfakes of election-related content, a popular conservative influencer promptly sued, accusing California of censoring protected speech, including satire and parody.

In his complaint, Christopher Kohls—who is known as "Mr Reagan" on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter)—said that he was suing "to defend all Americans’ right to satirize politicians." He claimed that California laws, AB 2655 and AB 2839, were urgently passed after X owner Elon Musk shared a partly AI-generated parody video on the social media platform that Kohls created to "lampoon" presidential hopeful Kamala Harris.

AB 2655, known as the "Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act," prohibits creating "with actual malice" any "materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate for elective office with the intent to injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate, within 60 days of the election." It requires social media platforms to block or remove any reported deceptive material and label "certain additional content" deemed "inauthentic, fake, or false" to prevent election interference.

The other law at issue, AB 2839, titled "Elections: deceptive media in advertisements," bans anyone from "knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication" with "malice" that "contains certain materially deceptive content" within 120 days of an election in California and, in some cases, within 60 days after an election.

Both bills were signed into law on September 17, and Kohls filed his complaint that day, alleging that both must be permanently blocked as unconstitutional.

Elon Musk called out for boosting Kohls’ video

Kohls' video that Musk shared seemingly would violate these laws by using AI to make Harris appear to give speeches that she never gave. The manipulated audio sounds like Harris, who appears to be mocking herself as a "diversity hire" and claiming that any critics must be "sexist and racist."

"Making fun of presidential candidates and other public figures is an American pastime," Kohls said, defending his parody video. He pointed to a long history of political cartoons and comedic impressions of politicians, claiming that "AI-generated commentary, though a new mode of speech, falls squarely within this tradition."

While Kohls' post was clearly marked "parody" in the YouTube title and in his post on X, that "parody" label did not carry over when Musk re-posted the video. This lack of a parody label on Musk's post—which got approximately 136 million views, roughly twice as many as Kohls' post—set off California governor Gavin Newsom, who immediately blasted Musk's post and vowed on X to make content like Kohls' video "illegal."

In response to Newsom, Musk poked fun at the governor, posting that "I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America." For his part, Kohls put up a second parody video targeting Harris, calling Newsom a "bully" in his complaint and claiming that he had to "punch back."

Shortly after these online exchanges, California lawmakers allegedly rushed to back the governor, Kohls' complaint said. They allegedly amended the deepfake bills to ensure that Kohls' video would be banned when the bills were signed into law, replacing a broad exception for satire in one law with a narrower safe harbor that Kohls claimed would chill humorists everywhere.

"For videos," his complaint said, disclaimers required under AB 2839 must "appear for the duration of the video" and "must be in a font size 'no smaller than the largest font size of other text appearing in the visual media.'" For a satirist like Kohls who uses large fonts to optimize videos for mobile, this "would require the disclaimer text to be so large that it could not fit on the screen," his complaint said.

On top of seeming impractical, the disclaimers would "fundamentally" alter "the nature of his message" by removing the comedic effect for viewers by distracting from what allegedly makes the videos funny—"the juxtaposition of over-the-top statements by the AI-generated 'narrator,' contrasted with the seemingly earnest style of the video as if it were a genuine campaign ad," Kohls' complaint alleged.

Imagine watching Saturday Night Live with prominent disclaimers taking up your TV screen, his complaint suggested.

It's possible that Kohls' concerns about AB 2839 are unwarranted. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Politico that Kohls' parody label on X was good enough to clear him of liability under the law.

"Requiring them to use the word ‘parody’ on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform," Gardon said. "It’s unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn’t any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama."

Platforms likely to censor parody

"Political satire is a fundamental First Amendment right," Kohls' complaint said, and California's laws allegedly infringe on that right, perhaps threatening a future where very little parody survives state-directed content takedowns.

According to Kohls, California's deepfake laws are unconstitutionally vague and put states and platforms in the position of deciding what's acceptable speech under the law. In one compelling example, Kohls alleged that AB 2839's definition of "malice" does not require "ill-intent" but simply having knowledge that "materially deceptive content was false" or acting "with a reckless disregard for the truth." That's a problem for parodists, Kohls said, because they know that their content is false.

"That’s the entire point of parody!" Kohls' complaint said.

Out of an abundance of caution to avoid any liability, Kohls' complaint alleged, platforms would likely overly censor parody—pressured to remove any offending content within 36 hours.

Meanwhile, his complaint alleged the government has no legitimate interest in censoring his content.

"It is black letter law that statutes like this—that regulate political speech, crack down on satire, and that offshore the enforcement to private entities—are unconstitutional," Kohls' complaint said.

Because his video was directly targeted as "illegal" by Newsom on social media, he's accused California of "flagrantly" using "state power to force private social media companies to censor private citizens’ speech by purging election-related AI-generated content with AB 2655." Additionally, he alleged that "AB 2839 provides candidates or any listener a cause of action against 'misleading' satirical political content they dislike." This means that anyone offended by Kohls' videos—of which he said there are plenty—could potentially sue over his content, Kohls alleged.

Without a court order, Kohls further claimed that YouTube and X were likely to remove his videos. But even if they don't, "AB 2839’s damages provisions immediately put him at financial risk for keeping existing Harris videos on his social media pages," his complaint said. The law allegedly places all the financial burden on creators like him to defend against any potential lawsuits. And "AB 2655 chills and restrains political humorists, subjecting them to censorship and other punitive sanction from platforms that host their speech," posing other financial risks for content creators, Kohls alleged.

Under the laws, humorous creators like Kohls risk losing access to platforms like YouTube and X, which he frequently uses to monetize his content by reaching large audiences of roughly 80,000 followers on X and 360,000 subscribers on YouTube.

He depends on both platforms to make a living, Kohls said, and the threat of any user offended by his videos potentially suing him over the content additionally serves "as a deterrent to speech" and threatens to chill "future content production," too, his complaint said.

The only remedy would be for a court to order an injunction blocking the laws, Kohls' complaint said.

Because California is urgently concerned about AI-generated disinformation influencing election results this November, AB 2839 is already in effect, while AB 2655 won't take effect until January 1. For Kohls, there's urgency in blocking both laws, especially AB 2839, which Kohls claimed has already all but assured that his Harris parody videos would be targeted for takedowns.

Kohls told the court that "he is powerless to keep these videos up and continue to use social media sites to post this commentary—which has cumulatively drawn millions of views—unless this Court grants relief."