Court Blocks Investigation of AI-Generated Video About Vermont Political Candidates Because Video Is Obviously “Ridiculous”

From Friday’s decision by Judge William Sessions (D. Vt.) in Poitras v. Clark:

This case concerns a video that plaintiff Henry L. Poitras (“Poitras”) posted on June 7, 2026, titled “Mark Helps Vermont Take Out the Trash.” The subjects of the video include Representative Becca Balint and her “expected Republican challenger,” Mark Coester. {The video includes a “realistic” depiction of Balint, as well as audio that “criticizes [her] New Jersey ties, her position on taxation and government spending, her agricultural policies, her autocratic tendencies, and other aspects of her personality and politics.” In the video, Balint makes statements such as “straws are banned, and if those farmers don’t like it, they can leave,” before Coester comes to “stop her” and uses heavy machinery to drop her into a dumpster.} The video also features audio that criticizes Balint.

On June 12, 2026, the Vermont Attorney General’s office (“AGO”) served Poitras with a civil investigative demand (“CID”) pursuant to Vermont’s recently-enacted synthetic media law, 17 V.S.A. § 2032, asking him to answer certain questions about the video under oath….

Section 2032 provides:

(a) Disclosure. A person shall not, within 90 days before an election in Vermont, publish, communicate, or otherwise distribute synthetic media that the person knows is deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media unless the person includes a disclosure in the synthetic media stating: “This media has been manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.”

(1) For deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media consisting of images and video recordings, the text of the disclosure shall appear in a size that is easily readable by the average viewer and inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. For video recordings, the disclosure shall appear for the full duration of the video recording….

(b) Exceptions. Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:

(1) A radio or television broadcasting station, including a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or producer, or to a website, streaming platform, or mobile application, that:

(A) Broadcasts deceptive and fraudulent synthetic as part of a bona fide newscast, … provided the broadcast clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure, in a manner that can be easily heard or read by the average listener or viewer, that there are questions about the authenticity of the deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media;

(B) Is paid to broadcast deceptive and fraudulent media; or

(C) Is required by federal law to broadcast advertisements from legally qualified candidates;

(2) A website or a regularly published newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general circulation, including an internet or electronic publication, that routinely carries news and commentary of general interest, and that publishes deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media, if the publication clearly states that the deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media does not accurately represent the speech or conduct of the represented individual;

(3) A person that produces or distributes deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media constituting satire or parody;

Section 2031 defines terms:

(1) “Deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media” means synthetic media that appears to a reasonable person to be a realistic representation of:

(A) A political candidate that injures the reputation of a political candidate; or

(B) An individual that attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election, including a public question, by providing materially false information to voters.

(2) “Synthetic media” means an image, an audio recording, or a video recording of an individual’s appearance, speech, or conduct that has been created or intentionally manipulated with the use of digital technology, including artificial intelligence….

The CID and cover letter stated,

I write to inform you that the Vermont Attorney General’s Office is investigating potential noncompliance with the new synthetic media disclosure law … by your Planet Hank social media accounts. Specifically, I mean the video posted to various Planet Hank social media accounts on June 7, 2026, depicting Rep. Becca Balint and Mark Coester….

Included with this letter is a civil investigative demand requiring your response by June 26, 2026. However, given that the law is new and the noncompliance may have been unintentional, if you bring the video into compliance with the new law by properly incorporating the required disclosure, our office will withdraw the demand and likely consider the investigation closed….

The CID asked “about who posted the June 7 video, how it was created, and whether it was intended to be a realistic representation of Becca Balint,” and added, “A person who knowingly and intentionally violates subchapter 4 of chapter 35 of Title 17 [which includes § 2032] is subject to criminal prosecution.”

The court declined to consider whether the statute was generally constitutional, because it concluded that the CID was likely unconstitutional in any event:

Under the circumstances of this particular case, the AGO argues that the sufficiently important governmental interest [supporting the CID] is … preserving the integrity of the electoral process and efforts to root out fraud, as well as combatting infractions caused by simple mistake…. [T]hese are indeed important governmental interests. What is less clear is whether the CID itself addresses these interests, because Poitras seems likely to succeed either in the argument that this video… fits within the exception … for “… satire or parody,” or because he is likely to succeed in the argument that … the depictions of Balint and Coester in the video would not “appear[ ] to a reasonable person to be a realistic representation of…a political candidate.”

The Court has viewed the “Mark Helps Vermont Take Out the Trash” video, and … at this early stage, the Court is confronted with the ridiculous nature of the video…. [T]he video in its entirety—including the voiceover, the unnatural appearances of those depicted, and the eventual dumping of Balint all contribute to its ridiculous nature. …

The Court finds that the strength of Vermont’s interest in protecting elections is lower when it relates to this specific video, and takes this lower-level interest into account when balancing the strength of the interest against the seriousness of the burden….

Brady Toensing (Toensing LLP) and Matthew D. Hardin (Hardin Law Office) represent Poitras.