Blab Politics
Babylon Bee Sues New Mexico Over AI Disclaimer Law Targeting Political Satire
The satirical website The Babylon Bee is now in federal court, challenging a New Mexico law that would force it to add a disclaimer whenever it uses artificial‑intelligence–generated or materially deceptive media in a political advertisement. The complaint, filed on August 11 2026 (case 26‑cv‑2628), argues that the state’s HB 182 violates the First Amendment and seeks to block enforcement by the New Mexico State Ethics Commission.
HB 182 was enacted in 2024 as part of the Campaign Reporting Act. The statute requires that anyone who creates an advertisement containing “materially deceptive media” must include a statement that the content has been “manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.” The law applies to political satire and parody, while granting radio and television stations more relaxed standards if the content is part of a news event. According to the complaint, the disclaimer requirement compels satirists to alter their material, thereby changing the nature of their humor.
The Babylon Bee’s attorneys, Justice Law and Alliance Defending Freedom, contend that the state ethics commission lacks the authority to enforce the AI‑disclaimer provisions and that the commission has never taken any action to do so. A spokesperson for the commission told Bloomberg Law that the agency has not enforced the rule and that the Bee has no right to attorneys’ fees.
The lawsuit follows a similar legal battle in Hawaii, where the Bee previously sued over Act 191, a law regulating AI deepfakes in elections. A federal court invalidated the Hawaii law, ruling that it discriminated based on content and speaker, thereby restricting constitutionally protected political speech. The New Mexico complaint cites that decision as a precedent for challenging state‑level AI regulations.
The dispute raises broader questions about how states can regulate AI‑generated political content without infringing free‑speech rights. The disclaimer requirement could affect satirical sites, news outlets, and campaign advertisements that use generative AI. Because no enforcement actions have been taken yet, the case remains pending in federal court.
The outcome of this litigation could influence other states that are considering similar regulations. If the court upholds the law, it would set a new standard for AI‑generated political content nationwide. If the court strikes it down, it would reinforce the precedent that AI‑disclaimer rules that target specific forms of expression may violate the First Amendment.
At present, the lawsuit remains unresolved. The New Mexico State Ethics Commission has reiterated that it has not enforced the disclaimer rule, and the court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of HB 182. The case stands as a key test of the limits of state regulation over AI‑generated political content and may set a precedent for future legal challenges.
HB 182 was enacted in 2024 as part of the Campaign Reporting Act. The statute requires that anyone who creates an advertisement containing “materially deceptive media” must include a statement that the content has been “manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.” The law applies to political satire and parody, while granting radio and television stations more relaxed standards if the content is part of a news event. According to the complaint, the disclaimer requirement compels satirists to alter their material, thereby changing the nature of their humor.
The Babylon Bee’s attorneys, Justice Law and Alliance Defending Freedom, contend that the state ethics commission lacks the authority to enforce the AI‑disclaimer provisions and that the commission has never taken any action to do so. A spokesperson for the commission told Bloomberg Law that the agency has not enforced the rule and that the Bee has no right to attorneys’ fees.
The lawsuit follows a similar legal battle in Hawaii, where the Bee previously sued over Act 191, a law regulating AI deepfakes in elections. A federal court invalidated the Hawaii law, ruling that it discriminated based on content and speaker, thereby restricting constitutionally protected political speech. The New Mexico complaint cites that decision as a precedent for challenging state‑level AI regulations.
The dispute raises broader questions about how states can regulate AI‑generated political content without infringing free‑speech rights. The disclaimer requirement could affect satirical sites, news outlets, and campaign advertisements that use generative AI. Because no enforcement actions have been taken yet, the case remains pending in federal court.
The outcome of this litigation could influence other states that are considering similar regulations. If the court upholds the law, it would set a new standard for AI‑generated political content nationwide. If the court strikes it down, it would reinforce the precedent that AI‑disclaimer rules that target specific forms of expression may violate the First Amendment.
At present, the lawsuit remains unresolved. The New Mexico State Ethics Commission has reiterated that it has not enforced the disclaimer rule, and the court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of HB 182. The case stands as a key test of the limits of state regulation over AI‑generated political content and may set a precedent for future legal challenges.
