A federal judge has temporarily barred Montana officials from enforcing the state’s political-deepfake law against one conservative political group, finding that the 2025 statute likely violates the First Amendment by treating negative and favorable AI-generated campaign messages differently.
Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Watters issued the preliminary injunction on September 16 in favor of Accountability in State Government and its leader, former Republican lawmaker Dan Bartel. The 40-page order prevents the attorney general, county prosecutors and the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices from investigating or prosecuting the plaintiffs under Senate Bill 25 while the case proceeds.
The ruling is limited. Watters declined to suspend the law statewide, and the injunction does not finally decide its constitutionality. Instead, it reflects her conclusion that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed and face a sufficient threat of enforcement to justify protection before trial.
Senate Bill 25 restricts election communications containing deepfakes within 60 days of voting when a speaker knew or should have known the material was synthetic. It includes exceptions for satire and content accompanied by a prominent AI disclosure. The bill record shows the measure passed the Senate 45-3 and the House 80-17 before Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it in May 2025.
Lawmakers enacted the measure amid concern that realistic synthetic audio, images and video could deceive voters. During the 2025 debate, Daily Montanan reported that supporters framed it as an election-integrity safeguard, while opponents warned that criminal penalties could chill political expression.
The lawsuit followed complaints about mailers distributed by Accountability in State Government. The materials combined authentic candidate photographs with AI-generated imagery. The commissioner later dismissed the administrative complaints under the law’s satire exception, but the group said it planned additional communications before the November election and remained exposed to future complaints.
Watters focused on viewpoint discrimination. As Reuters reported, the statute prohibits deceptive synthetic media intended to injure a candidate or party’s reputation but does not impose the same restriction on comparable content designed to improve a candidate’s standing. The judge found that distinction likely unconstitutional.
Montana’s attorney general’s office said it was disappointed and was reviewing its options. A local KULR report emphasized that the decision restricts enforcement rather than erasing the statute.
The case arrives as states experiment with different approaches to synthetic campaign media. A national tracker counted Montana among 33 states with laws regulating political deepfakes as of September 3. Many use disclosure requirements or time-limited bans, and several have faced constitutional challenges.
For Montana campaigns, the law remains on the books, but the named plaintiffs are protected while litigation continues. Other speakers cannot assume the same immunity. An appeal or final district-court ruling could reshape the statute before later elections, particularly whether lawmakers may require disclosure without conditioning liability on whether synthetic content helps or harms a candidate.
