Federal Judge Blocks Montana AI Political Ad Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal judge has struck down Montana's attempt to regulate artificial intelligence in political advertising, finding the state's restrictions unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Susan Watters issued an order late Wednesday blocking Montana officials from enforcing a law that prohibits using AI tools to misrepresent candidates in campaign ads. The ruling specifically prevents the state's Commissioner of Political Practices and attorney general from taking action against former Republican state legislator Dan Bartel and the Accountability in State Government PAC.

Why it matters

This decision arrives as states nationwide grapple with how to regulate AI-generated political content without running afoul of free speech protections. The ruling suggests that broad restrictions on AI use in political advertising may face significant constitutional hurdles, potentially influencing how other jurisdictions approach similar legislation as the 2026 election cycle intensifies.

The law and its limits

Montana's statute prohibited anyone from distributing campaign ads containing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates or political parties within 60 days of voting, unless the materials included clear disclosure statements. The law defined violations as content creators knew or should have known was artificially manipulated to falsely appear authentic.

Judge Watters found that Bartel and the PAC faced credible enforcement threats based on complaints filed during primary elections and a warning letter from Commissioner Chris Gallus. Court documents revealed the group planned to distribute mailers depicting Democratic legislator Mary Ann Dunwell as a pickpocket in country-western attire—imagery created using AI tools.

Campaign complaints and satire defense

The controversy emerged during spring primaries when Bartel's group targeted Republican candidates with AI-generated images portraying them as supporters of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Jennifer Carlson, a Manhattan candidate, filed a formal complaint with state officials.

Commissioner Gallus testified in court filings that the challenged mailers constituted political satire—a protected form of candidate criticism exempt from the AI law. However, the judge's ruling suggests this distinction failed to resolve the underlying constitutional concerns.

Constitutional arguments prevail

Matt Monforton, representing Bartel and the PAC, argued the Montana law violated First Amendment protections. He contended the required disclosure statements were designed to undermine the effectiveness of AI-enhanced political messaging rather than simply inform voters.

The plaintiffs also disputed whether their materials qualified as "deepfakes," pointing to a 2024 robocall that used AI to convincingly mimic President Joe Biden's voice as an example of actual deepfake technology. Their ads, they argued, were clearly satirical rather than deceptive impersonations.

The ruling clears the way for the group's planned advertising in legislative races during the November general election. Montana Free Press first reported the details of this case.