A federal judge in Billings is weighing whether a Montana law requiring disclosure labels on AI-generated political content violates the First Amendment. The case stems from a 2024 campaign mailer that used AI to superimpose pride flags and pronoun pins onto images of three candidates.
Former state Sen. Dan Bartel sent the mailers targeting three candidates. The images were altered from real photographs, according to testimony. Bartel's attorneys argue the mailers were political satire, not deepfakes, and that the law is unconstitutional.
The law, Senate Bill 25, took effect in 2025. It requires a disclosure label on AI-generated election communication distributed within 60 days of an election, but only when the content is designed to deceive a voter. It does not ban the content itself.
The dispute over disclosure
State Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena, sponsored the bill. She said the law's purpose is transparency, not censorship.
"It doesn't prohibit that from going up. It just requires disclosure," Ellis said during Friday's hearing.
Bartel's attorney, Adam Schulman, argued the law gives the state too much power to police political speech. He said candidates can respond to false or misleading material on their own.
"The problem is when a state comes in and views that its mission to arbitrate the truth and for the sake of free and fair elections, we need to limit the amount of speech," Schulman said.
"Throughout history, free and fair elections are a rough-and-tumble process of everybody speaking their mind, and it's not always going to be in an agreeable and pleasant way," he added.
Commissioner's ruling and next steps
Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Chris Gallus said he plans to dismiss the complaints against Bartel. Gallus concluded the mailers were satire, not deepfakes, and therefore did not require a disclosure label under the law.
"They didn't have the deepfake disclaimer on them," Gallus said. "And based on the satirical nature of the speech involved, it wasn't required. And that's what I concluded."
Bartel has indicated he will continue sending AI-generated mailers. Schulman noted Gallus's dismissal only covers the three complaints already filed, not future mailers.
"That declaration only spoke to these three complaints that had previously been filed, it didn't speak to anything that could happen in the future," Schulman said.
U.S. District Judge Susan Waters said she will issue a ruling by early September. The case tests how far states can go in regulating AI political content without crossing into speech restrictions - a question with implications beyond Montana.
For legal and government professionals tracking AI policy, the ruling will clarify how courts treat state efforts to regulate synthetic media in elections. The case is a practical example of the tension between disclosure requirements and First Amendment protections, and it may set a precedent for similar laws in other states. Those working in policy or compliance roles may want to follow the outcome closely, as it could shape how AI-generated content is handled in future election cycles. For a broader look at how government agencies are approaching AI regulation, see AI for Government. Professionals involved in drafting or implementing AI policy may also benefit from the AI Learning Path for Policy Makers.
Why this matters for legal and government professionals
The Montana case is a concrete test of how far states can go in regulating AI-generated political speech. The ruling will likely influence how other states draft disclosure laws and how courts evaluate them. For attorneys, compliance officers, and government staff, the outcome offers a preview of the legal standards that will apply to synthetic media in elections - and where the line between regulation and censorship sits.
Your membership also unlocks:
