California AB 686: Deepfake Election Law Extended to 2031

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 686 (Berman) on September 19, 2026, extending the life of the state's law on materially deceptive election media, Elections Code section 20010, from a January 1, 2027 expiration to January 1, 2031. The bill also pushed back a matching sunset in Code of Civil Procedure section 35. It is a sunset extension of an existing rule, not a new deepfake ban.

Information last verified on September 20, 2026.

Status: Signed and chaptered September 19, 2026, as Chapter 334, Statutes of 2026. Elections Code section 20010, in its current form, now runs through January 1, 2031 instead of expiring January 1, 2027.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California state law only, specifically Elections Code section 20010, the related Code of Civil Procedure section 35, and two other California election bills Governor Newsom signed the same day, AB 502 and AB 1130. It does not cover any other state's deepfake or election-media statutes, federal law, or the current status of any pending federal court litigation over California's separate AI-election statutes; that litigation posture is outside what this article verifies and is not addressed here.

What Happened

AB 686, introduced by Assemblymember Marc Berman on February 14, 2025 and coauthored by Senator Sabrina Cervantes, passed the Assembly 76-0 on May 27, 2025, passed the Senate 30-6 on August 24, 2026, and returned to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments, which passed 63-14 on August 30, 2026. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 9, 2026. Newsom approved it on September 19, 2026, and the Secretary of State chaptered it the same day as Chapter 334, Statutes of 2026. The bill's official title is "Elections: deceptive audio or visual media."

The bill's own text lays out what it does in a single sentence: "This bill would extend the repeal date of these provisions to January 1, 2031." That is the whole operative change. AB 686 amends Elections Code section 20010 (in Section 3 of the bill) so subdivision (g) reads: "This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2031, deletes or extends that date." Before AB 686, that subdivision named January 1, 2027.

The same bill (Sections 1 and 2) makes a matching change to Code of Civil Procedure section 35, which requires courts to calendar certain election-related cases, including actions brought under Elections Code section 20010, in order of filing and give them precedence. Section 35 exists in two paired versions in California law, tied to whichever version of section 20010 is currently operative, and AB 686 moved both of that section's sunset and operative dates from 2027 to 2031 to keep pace with the section 20010 change.

Newsom signed two other election bills the same day. AB 502 (Pellerin), chaptered as Chapter 333, Statutes of 2026 and titled "Elections: deceptive media in advertisements," amends a separate statute, Elections Code section 20012, which prohibits knowingly distributing an election communication with materially deceptive content about a candidate or elections official when the content is reasonably likely to harm a reputation, harm electoral prospects, or undermine confidence in an election's outcome. Existing law applied that prohibition within 120 days before an election, and up to 60 days after for content about elections officials or voting equipment; AB 502 narrows that to 30 days before an election for candidates and officials, and 30 days before through 38 days after for content about elections officials and voting machines. It also shifts who may sue, from any recipient of the deceptive content to the individual actually depicted in it, adds a reasonable-person satire and parody exemption, and was enacted as an urgency statute, effective immediately on signing rather than the following January.

AB 1130 (Berman), chaptered as Chapter 335, Statutes of 2026 and titled "Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign disclosures," amends Government Code section 84513. Existing law already required a committee-paid social media poster to disclose that payment, but exempted a violation of that requirement from the Political Reform Act's administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. AB 1130 removes that exemption, makes the poster and the paying committee jointly and severally liable for penalties when the disclaimer is missing, requires the committee to warn the poster of that exposure, and requires the committee to report the paid post on its own campaign disclosure filings. AB 502 and AB 1130 amend different code sections than AB 686 does; they are not the same statute and this article does not treat them as such.

What the Law Actually Says

Elections Code section 20010, in the version AB 686 just extended, is narrower than its plain language sometimes gets described. Subdivision (a) prohibits a person, committee, or other entity from distributing, within 60 days of an election at which a candidate will appear on the ballot, materially deceptive audio or visual media of that candidate, but only if it is done with actual malice and with the intent to injure the candidate's reputation or deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate. "Materially deceptive audio or visual media" is defined in subdivision (e) as content that has been intentionally manipulated so that it would falsely appear authentic to a reasonable person and would give that person a fundamentally different understanding of the candidate's speech or conduct than the unaltered original would.

Subdivision (b) builds in an off-ramp: the prohibition does not apply if the media carries a disclosure stating it has been manipulated, using the word "image," "video," or "audio" as appropriate, displayed in text no smaller than the largest other text on screen (or, for audio, read aloud at the start, the end, and every two minutes throughout).

Subdivision (c) sets the remedies. A candidate depicted in qualifying deceptive media may seek injunctive or other equitable relief to stop its distribution, with that action entitled to calendar precedence under Code of Civil Procedure section 35. Separately, that candidate may bring a civil action for general or special damages, and a prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff carries the burden of proving the violation by clear and convincing evidence, a higher bar than the preponderance standard that applies in most civil cases.

Subdivision (d) carves out several exemptions: nothing in the section alters Section 230 immunity for interactive service providers; a broadcast station is exempt if it airs the content as part of a bona fide newscast, interview, documentary, or on-the-spot news coverage and flags the authenticity question, but not if it is paid to air the content; an internet site or regularly published periodical is exempt if it clearly states the media does not accurately represent the candidate; and content that constitutes satire or parody is exempt outright. Subdivision (f) makes the section severable, and subdivision (g), the provision AB 686 amended, is the sunset clause now set to January 1, 2031.

For readers comparing this to other California AI statutes, our guide to California's deepfake laws walks through section 20010 alongside the state's other deepfake-adjacent statutes, and the broader 50-state rundown of deepfake laws shows how few other states pair a private right of action with a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard the way California does.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The headline fact here is narrower than "California passes new deepfake law," and that narrowness matters. AB 686 changes one date in one subdivision. It does not add a new category of prohibited conduct, does not change the actual-malice standard, does not change who can sue, and does not change the clear-and-convincing burden of proof. What it prevents is a scheduled handoff: without this bill, the AI-era version of section 20010 would have expired automatically on January 1, 2027, and California's law would have reverted, that same day, to a much older and narrower rule limited to superimposed campaign photographs, a rule that predates the current wave of generative AI tools entirely and says nothing about synthetic audio or video.

That two-track structure, a modern provision with a built-in expiration date and an older fallback provision waiting to take its place, is a legislative technique worth understanding on its own terms. It lets a legislature test a newer, more far-reaching rule for a fixed period without permanently committing to it, and it forces a future legislature to affirmatively act to keep the newer rule alive, rather than letting inertia carry it forward indefinitely. The tradeoff is that the rule's survival becomes a recurring legislative event; had AB 686 not passed and been signed before January 1, 2027, the broader disclosure and liability regime would have lapsed regardless of anyone's intent, and it would take a new bill working through both houses again to revive it, this time without the benefit of the existing sunset clock.

Grouping AB 686 with AB 502 and AB 1130 is useful context, but the three bills are doing different work and should not be described interchangeably. AB 686 is purely a timing extension on section 20010. AB 502 substantively rewrites the separate deceptive-communications statute in section 20012, shrinking its window and, notably, was passed as an urgency statute that took effect immediately rather than waiting for the ordinary next-year effective date, which signals the Legislature treated a compressed pre-election timing window as urgent enough to bypass the usual delay. AB 1130 is not about deepfakes at all; it tightens disclosure liability for paid social media political posts under the separate Political Reform Act framework. Readers researching how these provisions interact with California's other AI statutes may also find our page on California's AI law landscape useful for the wider picture, and our explainer on how AI voice cloning is regulated relevant, since section 20010's "audio or visual media" language reaches synthetic voice content as well as video.

It is also worth being precise about what this article does not cover. California's separate 2024-era AI election statutes have drawn attention in federal court in the years since their enactment. This article does not characterize or predict the outcome of any such litigation, because that was outside what could be independently verified against a primary source or a court docket in the course of writing it; a reader who needs the current litigation posture should check a court's own docket or a legal news source that tracks it directly, not rely on this piece.

How This Affects You

For most Californians, the practical effect of AB 686 is that nothing changes on the ground for at least the next several election cycles. The rule that already governed distributing materially deceptive candidate media within 60 days of an election continues to govern it, on the same terms, through January 1, 2031.

If you are a candidate, campaign staffer, or political consultant, the practical takeaway is that the compliance posture you already had under section 20010 does not need to change because of this bill; what changes is your planning horizon. If you create, share, or comment on candidate content that has been digitally altered, disclosure remains the safe harbor Californians have had since before this bill: label manipulated media clearly, in the manner subdivision (b) describes, and the distribution falls outside the prohibition.

If you believe you have been targeted by deceptive media about you as a candidate, or you are evaluating content you suspect was manipulated about someone else, the remedies described above (injunctive relief, or a damages action with fee-shifting) exist under section 20010 as written, with the clear-and-convincing evidentiary bar that applies to any such claim. Whether a specific post, video, or ad qualifies, and whether an exemption applies, depends on facts a general article cannot evaluate for you. Similarly, if you post about a candidate or ballot measure and a committee paid you to do it, AB 1130's tightened disclosure-liability rules under the Political Reform Act are a separate compliance question worth understanding before, not after, you post. Our overview of how California defamation law treats false statements about public figures covers a related but legally distinct set of claims that can sometimes arise alongside a section 20010 issue.

This article is general legal information about a newly signed California statute, based on primary sources reviewed as of the verification date above. It is not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need advice about a specific situation involving deceptive election media, consult a licensed California attorney.

Last updated: 2026-09-20. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-20.