California has enacted AB 502 as an urgency statute, in effect on signing on 19 September 2026, rewriting Elections Code section 20012 so that the materially deceptive election content prohibition runs 30 days before an election, turns on materiality tests, and gives standing to the person depicted instead of to recipients

Signed on 19 September as an urgency statute, chapter number pending

Two dates sit on this instrument and they are not the same date. The text the desk read is the enrolled version of AB 502, stamped 09/03/26 - Enrolled on leginfo: the bill as passed by both houses and sent to the Governor on 3 September 2026. The signing is the in-window event, and the evidence for it is the Governor's office. Its release published on 19 September 2026 lists AB 502 (Pellerin) among the bills the Governor signed that day and describes it as making modifications to provisions of law that prohibit anyone, with malice, from knowingly distributing a campaign advertisement or other election communication containing materially deceptive content unless certain conditions are met. When we read leginfo the chaptered text had not been posted and we had not verified a chapter number, so this piece cites the enrolled text and carries no Chapter X, Statutes of 2026 reference. The chapter number is pending, and the saved bill text bears no approval stamp; the 19 September date rests on the release.

SEC. 2 is an urgency clause. It declares the act an urgency statute within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution, provides that it shall go into immediate effect, and states the necessity in one sentence: in order for this act to apply to the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. The Legislative Counsel's Digest printed with the bill records a two-thirds vote requirement. On the act's own terms, then, the amended section 20012 took effect on signing. That is the only sense in which anything started on 19 September. The amended section exists and is in force by its own terms; the prohibition inside it applies only during the windows in subdivision (c), which for the 3 November election open in October; and whether the section can be enforced against anyone is a separate question, taken up below.

The same release lists AB 686 (Berman), which is not an urgency statute and so, under the ordinary rule for statutes enacted in 2026, takes effect on 1 January 2027; it extends the sunset on the current text of Elections Code section 20010, the 60-day candidate deepfake ban with its manipulated-media disclosure exception, and on the current calendar-precedence text of Code of Civil Procedure section 35, from 1 January 2027 to 1 January 2031, with successor versions of both sections becoming operative on that date and the successor section 35 still naming section 20012, so it is a sunset extension and not a wholesale repeal.

What changed against the 2024 text, and what did not

AB 502 amends section 20012; it does not add it. The section was written in its current shape by AB 2839 (Pellerin), Chapter 262, Statutes of 2024, and the honest way to read the 2026 act is as a diff against that text. Five things moved.

The windows shrank. Old subdivision (c)(1) applied the prohibition one hundred twenty days before any election in California, and old (c)(2) applied it, for elections officials and voting equipment, 120 days before any election in California through 60 days after the election, inclusive. New (c)(1) applies it 30 days before any election in California in which the candidate is running; new (c)(2) applies it, for elected officials, 30 days before any election in California; new (c)(3) applies it, for elections officials and equipment, 30 days before any election in California through 38 days after the election, inclusive. The candidate window is also now tied to an election the candidate is running in, which the 2024 text did not say.

The harm tests became materiality tests. The 2024 text reached a candidate portrayal if the content is reasonably likely to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate, and reached officials and equipment if the content is reasonably likely to falsely undermine confidence in the outcome of one or more election contests. The 2026 text replaces those predicates. For candidates and elected officials the test is whether the content would be material to a voter's electoral decisions or to public confidence in an election's process or outcome; for elections officials and equipment, whether the content is material to public confidence in an election's process or outcome. Reputation and electoral prospects no longer appear in the predicate.

Standing moved from the audience to the subject. Old (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) opened both the injunction action and the damages action to a recipient of materially deceptive content distributed in violation of this section, as well as to a candidate or committee participating in the election, or elections official. The new text substitutes a depicted individual, defined in (f)(5) as an individual who is falsely represented in materially deceptive content. Candidates, committees and elections officials keep their standing. Recipients lose theirs. The definition of recipient in (f)(10) remains in the section; we found no operative paragraph that still uses it.

Satire gained a second door, and the label got a typeface. Under old (b)(3), satire or parody escaped the section only if the communication carried the disclosure This ____ has been manipulated for purposes of satire or parody. New (e)(4) exempts content if either a reasonable person would understand that the content was satire or parody, or the content carries that disclosure, or substantially similar language, in the prescribed format. The format itself changed. The 2024 rule for visual media was a size easily readable by the average viewer and no smaller than the largest font size of other text in the media. New (b)(2)(B) prescribes a contrasting colour, standard Arial Regular type, at least 4 percent of the height or width of the display, whichever is less, for the duration of a video, at least 14 point for individually distributed print such as mailers, flyers and door hangers, a total height of at least 5 percent of the advertisement for larger print such as yard signs and billboards, at least 11 point for electronic graphics and animated images, and no condensed type or reduced character spacing. The self-portrayal safe harbour in (b)(2) now also accepts the disclosure required by Government Code section 84514 as an alternative to the manipulated label.

What did not change is longer than what did. The malice requirement, defined in (f)(8) as distributing the media knowing the materially deceptive content was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth, was in the 2024 text. So was coverage of presidential and vice-presidential candidates who seek to or will appear on a California ballot, of elections officials, of elected officials, and of voting machines, ballots, voting sites and related equipment. So were the injunction action with mandatory fees to a prevailing plaintiff, the damages action with fees to a prevailing party, the clear-and-convincing burden, the news-broadcast, paid-broadcast and periodical exemptions, the carve-out for interactive computer services, and the definition of materially deceptive content with its exclusion for minor modifications. AB 502 rewrote none of those. An account that presents them as new is describing the 2024 act.

The clock is the window, not the signing date

Immediate effect does not mean the prohibition is running today against every communication. Subdivision (c) opens with the words the prohibition in subdivision (b) applies only during the following time periods, and every period is defined relative to an election. For the 3 November 2026 general election that the urgency clause names, the 30-day candidate and elected-official windows open in early October 2026, and the elections-official and equipment window runs from the same point through 38 days after the election, which is about 11 December 2026 by desk arithmetic. Outside those windows section 20012 prohibits nothing, whatever the calendar says about the act being in effect. The text does not say how the 30th day is counted, and we do not fix a day.

Two conduct rules run inside the window, not one. (b)(1) is the distribution prohibition: a person, committee or other entity is not to distribute, with malice and knowingly, an advertisement or other election communication containing materially deceptive content of the four covered kinds during the (c) period. (b)(3) separately prohibits, during the same period, removing a disclosure required by (b)(2) or knowingly republishing content subject to (b)(2) without it, and makes a violation of that rule evidence of intent to knowingly distribute materially deceptive content under (b)(1). The 2024 text had the same structure at old (b)(4), then reaching the satire disclosure as well; new (b)(3) refers only to the self-portrayal disclosure in (b)(2).

All of that describes the enrolled text as it stands after signing, in force by its own urgency clause. None of it is a statement that the State, or any plaintiff, can obtain relief under it. That question is addressed below.

Who may sue, for what, and on what proof

(d)(1) lets a depicted individual, candidate or committee participating in the election, or elections official seek injunctive or other equitable relief prohibiting the distribution of the materially deceptive content in violation of this section. In the text's words, the court shall also award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and the action is entitled to precedence under Code of Civil Procedure section 35. The fee award in the injunction action runs one way, to a prevailing plaintiff.

(d)(2)(A) gives the same four categories an action for general or special damages against the person, committee, or other entity that distributed or republished the content in violation of the section. Here the fee provision is symmetrical: the court is to award a prevailing party, not a prevailing plaintiff, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, so a defendant who defeats a damages claim is within the words. (d)(2)(B) removes from the damages paragraph a broadcasting station or internet website that distributed the materially deceptive content if the broadcasting station or internet website did not create the content. (d)(3) sets the burden for every civil action under the section: the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the violation through clear and convincing evidence. The section supplies no statutory damages figure, no presumption of liability and no criminal penalty.

None of this machinery is new. The 2024 text had the same (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3), differing only in who could bring the actions. The change is the plaintiff list, and the plaintiff list is now the person depicted, the candidate, the committee and the elections official.

Broadcasters, periodicals, satire, and no platform liability

(e)(5) is the sentence platform counsel will look for: this section does not impose liability on an interactive computer service, as defined in Section 230(f)(2) of Title 47 of the United States Code. It was (e)(4) in the 2024 text and is unchanged in substance. Section 20012 is a rule about the person who distributes or republishes, not about the service that hosts.

The media exemptions are conditional, and the conditions are in the text. A broadcasting station, defined in (f)(2) to include cable, streaming and direct-to-home satellite operators, programmers and producers, is outside the section for a bona fide newscast, news interview, news documentary, commentary of general interest or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, if the broadcast clearly acknowledges, in a manner the average listener or viewer can easily hear or read, that the content does not accurately represent any actual event, occurrence, appearance, speech or expressive conduct. A paid broadcast is outside the section only if the station can show prohibition and disclaimer requirements consistent with the section that it has provided to each purchaser of the advertisement, or if federal law requires it to air advertisements from legally qualified candidates or prohibits it from censoring or altering the message. A regularly published newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation, including an internet or electronic publication, that routinely carries news and commentary of general interest is outside the section if it clearly states that the content does not accurately represent any actual event. Being a broadcaster or a publisher is not, by itself, the exemption: the news and periodical routes turn on the acknowledgement, and a paid broadcast qualifies either through the station's own prohibition and disclaimer requirements given to purchasers or, independently, where federal law requires it to air a legally qualified candidate's advertisement or prohibits it from censoring or altering the message.

The disclosure in (b)(2) is narrower than a general label defence. By its opening words it applies, notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), to a candidate portraying themselves. On the words of (b)(2), a third party who labels a deepfake of a candidate as manipulated is not within it; that third party's route, if there is one, is the satire and parody exemption in (e)(4) or one of the media exemptions. That is our reading of the text, and the text gives no other general disclosure defence.

The section under a permanent injunction

Section 20012 as enacted by AB 2839 is the statute challenged in Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527-JAM-CKD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On 29 August 2025, in ECF 101, Senior District Judge John A. Mendez granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the State defendants' cross-motion. The ordering paragraph on page 24 provides that defendants Rob Bonta and Shirley N. Weber and their agents, employees, public servants, officers and persons acting in concert with them are permanently enjoined from enforcing AB 2839 against the named plaintiffs, who are Christopher Kohls, The Babylon Bee, LLC and Kelly Chang Rickert. That is a permanent injunction entered on a final summary judgment, not a preliminary one, and it is limited by its terms to the named plaintiffs.

AB 502 amends that section. It does not repeal it, re-enact it under a new number, or say anything about the judgment; the Legislative Counsel's Digest printed with the bill describes the changes without mentioning the case or the injunction. We therefore say only what the documents support: the section AB 502 amends is the one the Kohls judgment barred the State from enforcing against the named plaintiffs, and what that judgment means for the amended text has not been decided by anything the desk read. We did not read the court's reasoning, we did not check for an appeal, a stay or any later order, and we make no claim that the amended section is enforceable against the named plaintiffs or against anyone else, or that its enforceability has been tested.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the enrolled text of AB 502 as served by California Legislative Information at bill_id 202520260AB502, version 20250AB50294ENR, read end to end from the saved HTML and its whitespace-normalised extraction, including the header stamp 09/03/26 - Enrolled, the Legislative Counsel's Digest, SECTION 1 (section 20012, subdivisions (a) to (h)) and SEC. 2; the enrolled text of AB 686 at bill_id 202520260AB686, version 20250AB68696ENR, SECTION 1 to SEC. 4; the chaptered text of AB 2839, Chapter 262, Statutes of 2024, section 20012 as it then read, which is the baseline for every what-changed statement above; the Governor's office release published 19 September 2026, for the signing of both bills and nothing else; and, for Kohls v. Bonta, the Justia docket text for ECF 101, page 1 of the order, and the ordering paragraph on page 24.

What we did not open: the chaptered text of AB 502 or AB 686, which had not been posted when we read leginfo; the leginfo bill history and status pages, which the desk's checker could not retrieve, so the approval entry there is unconfirmed; pages 2 to 23 of the Kohls order, meaning the court's reasoning, on which we rely for nothing; any docket entry after ECF 101, including any notice of appeal, stay or later order; the committee analyses, floor analyses and earlier amended versions of either bill; Government Code section 84514; the text of Article IV, section 8 of the California Constitution, which we cite only for the ordinary-rule effective date of AB 686 as the standard rule; and the Montana, Hawaii and other state deepfake cases linked below, beyond the desk's own prior coverage.

What we refuse to claim: we do not say why the Legislature drafted AB 502, or that it was drafted with the Kohls judgment in view, because nothing we read says so. We do not say the amended section is enforceable against the named plaintiffs, against anyone else, or at all, because no document we read decides that. We do not say AB 502 newly created the injunction or damages actions, fee-shifting, the malice element, or coverage of officials, equipment or presidential candidates, because the 2024 text already had them. We do not say platforms are liable under the section, because (e)(5) says otherwise, or that a manipulated label protects every distributor, because (b)(2) is confined to candidate self-portrayal. We do not say AB 686 is in force now, or that 2031 repeals the deepfake rules outright, because it carries no urgency clause and both sections have successor versions. We give no chapter number, no first-in-the-nation claim, and no prediction about the November election. Where the sources use curly quotation marks or section symbols we have folded them to straight quotes and the word section.

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.

Related briefings

• Montana SB 25 election deepfake law: preliminary injunction for the named plaintiffs only
• Hawaii election deepfake law enjoined in Babylon Bee v. Lopez
• California SB 1050: synthetic performer advertising disclosure
• North America AI regulation tracker
• AI Regulation News hub