This year, reality TV met AI met City Hall. Spencer Pratt, of The Hills, ran for mayor of Los Angeles, and viral AI videos cast him as a superhero taking on the city's leaders. He finished third in the June primary with 217,977 votes, according to the city clerk's certification.
The videos outlived the campaign. On September 30, Sen. Ted Cruz cited them on the Senate floor while objecting to the federal NO FAKES Act. Pratt "had fantastic ads--made using AI--that parodied his political opponents," Cruz said, adding that "California lawmakers have already suggested that Pratt's viral campaign ads could violate State deepfake rules."
So do California's rules reach videos like these? Read the text, and the answer is narrower than the noise.
Takeaway #1: California's AI political ad label is the committee's job
FROM THE STATUTE
"If a committee, as defined in Section 82013, creates, originally publishes, or originally distributes a qualified political advertisement, the qualified political advertisement shall include, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the following disclosure: 'Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence.'"
What it means for you. The duty sits on a "committee," the campaign-finance term for candidates' campaigns and other groups that raise or spend money on elections. One person can be a committee, too: anyone who makes $1,000 or more in independent expenditures in a calendar year (Gov. Code §82013). At the Fair Political Practices Commission's August meeting, Commissioner Wilson noted the requirement only reaches political committees.
That matters for videos made by fans or independent artists. The Daily News reported that many of the viral Pratt videos were created by filmmaker Charlie Curran and later reposted by Pratt. A spokesperson for Curran's studio said they were made independently and without payment from the campaign. The statute covers a committee that "creates, originally publishes, or originally distributes." A candidate resharing someone else's post sits awkwardly in that language. So does the law's definition of an "advertisement": one "authorized and paid for by a committee." The law's author, former Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, told the Daily News that third-party content later reshared by a campaign is a loophole that should be closed.
Breaking the rule isn't a crime. The statute says a violation "shall not constitute a misdemeanor." The FPPC can seek an injunction or pursue administrative or civil remedies.
Your move. Campaign staff, if you didn't make it, don't assume resharing is risk-free. Get the creator's source files and decide whether the label belongs on it before it goes out under your name.
Takeaway #2: Obvious cartoons are out
FROM THE REGULATION
"For purposes of this section, disclosure is not required solely for visual media that is obviously an animation or a cartoon."
What it means for you. The statute only covers AI media that "would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be authentic," or that's altered so a reasonable person would have "a fundamentally different understanding" of it. On August 20, the FPPC voted 4-0 to adopt a regulation spelling that out. Media triggers the label if it "depicts an identifiable person saying or doing something the person did not say or do," shows something realistic that never happened, or materially changes how an identifiable person looks or sounds.
Then comes the carve-out above. An obvious cartoon doesn't fool anyone into thinking it's real, so it doesn't need the label. The studio behind the Pratt videos made a version of that argument to the Daily News: they weren't labeled because "it's obvious a cartoon-like graphic is AI." Whether any specific video is "obviously an animation or a cartoon" is a judgment call I won't make for you.
The commission's examples help. A minor AI touch-up to a candidate's smile wouldn't trigger the label. Changing the signs in a real rally photo would. So would generating a candidate's voice saying something they never said. Chair Silver said the test is how a reasonable person would understand the media, not whether the committee meant to deceive. The devil is in the details.
Your move. If a political ad uses AI, keep your originals. The FPPC also amended Regulation 18401 so committees must keep any authentic image, audio or video fed into an AI tool, "including any metadata contained in the file."
Sample wording (our illustration): "Creator will deliver all source files and AI prompts for each asset to the Committee, which will decide whether the §84514 disclosure is required before publication."
And always remember, don't sign it till you read it, my friends.
General information, not legal advice. Reading this doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Campaigns should talk to their own election lawyer.
Sources
- California Government Code §84514 (California Legislative Information)
- FPPC, Regulation 18450.12, 'Artificial Intelligence Disclosure' (adopted text, Aug 2026)
- FPPC, Minutes of Hearing, Aug 20, 2026
- Congressional Record, Senate, Sept. 30, 2026 (S5206)
- Los Angeles City Clerk, certification of June 2, 2026 primary results
- Los Angeles Daily News, 'Batman, AI and the LA mayor's race: Pratt videos spark backlash and legal debate', May 27, 2026
