Key Takeaways:
- States are adopting their own laws on AI in political ads, creating new obligations for campaigns, committees, vendors and platforms that operate across jurisdictions. Most focus on two areas: requiring disclaimers or disclosures when synthetic content is used, and limiting its distribution close to elections.
- Noncompliance carries real consequences, including civil or criminal liability, takedown demands and reputational harm. Political advertisers, vendors and platforms must proactively manage risk and adapt quickly as enforcement evolves.
- These laws are already facing constitutional challenges, and early litigation and court rulings show the landscape is unsettled and likely to change.
State governments are moving ahead of Washington to regulate how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in political advertising. These new laws are reshaping campaign practices and creating compliance challenges for candidates, political committees, advocacy groups, media vendors, and online platforms.
While approaches differ, most states focus on two areas: requiring disclaimers or disclosures when ads contain AI-generated content, and restricting or prohibiting the distribution of synthetic content close in time to elections. At least 26 states already have laws in place, and more are likely to follow. For example, Texas prohibits the publication of deepfake videos intended to influence voters within 30 days of an election, while Michigan requires disclaimers for robocalls and political ads created with generative AI, and Utah requires that synthetic media intended to influence voters include both a disclaimer and embedded tamper-resistant digital content provenance.
These laws are already being tested, and the legal environment remains unsettled. In Minnesota, a challenge to the state’s deepfake ban raised First and 14th amendment and vagueness concerns. In California, a platform-focused law aimed at restricting AI-generated deepfake content was struck down in federal court in August of this year. These disputes will affect not only whether current laws survive judicial scrutiny but also how aggressively other states pursue similar measures.
The result is a patchwork of obligations that advertisers, vendors, and platforms must navigate carefully. The implications are significant. These laws can dictate the wording and placement of disclaimers, impose takedown or labeling duties, and in some cases create criminal or civil liability. Advertisers will need to build compliance systems that account for state-by-state requirements, and vendors producing creative content may need to certify whether AI tools were used. Platforms may be asked to label, remove, or archive AI-generated material as elections approach. With regulators, litigants, and the media all closely watching, organizations that advertise in multiple states will need proactive policies to manage risk and avoid costly disputes.
BakerHostetler’s Political Law team is helping clients build compliance strategies for this new environment. We advise on which state rules apply to a particular advertiser, draft and review disclaimer language, counsel on vendor and platform obligations, and defend clients in enforcement and litigation. As AI continues to change how political and issue advertisers communicate, our team draws on deep experience in campaign finance, election law, and state regulatory regimes to help clients move quickly while minimizing risk.
