Detect Deepfakesby Resemble AI
Deepfake case study · Image

Eric Albus AI image incident — Sep 2026

A federal judge issued an injunction against a Montana law requiring AI disclosures on political ads, allowing more AI-altered content in upcoming campaigns.

Incident date
Sep 2026
Target
Eric Albus
Updated Sep 19, 2026 · 1 min read

A federal judge recently granted a preliminary injunction against a Montana law that required disclaimers on political advertisements using AI-generated or digitally altered content. The ruling follows a challenge by former state Senator Dan Bartel, whose political committee utilized AI to create altered images for campaign mailers during the 2026 primary season.

What happened

Senate Bill 25, signed into law in 2025, mandated that political ads appearing within 60 days of an election include a disclaimer if they used AI to injure a candidate's reputation or deceive voters. During the 2026 GOP legislative primaries, Bartel’s committee, Accountability in State Government, distributed mailers targeting Republican moderates. One such mailer featured an altered image of Rep. Eric Albus, a candidate for the Montana Senate, depicting him wearing a pronoun pin and holding a pride flag. While Albus noted that some constituents believed the manipulated image was authentic, the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices ultimately dismissed the complaints, citing an exemption for satire and parody.

Bartel challenged the statute in federal court, arguing that the mandatory disclosure requirement undermined his political messaging and violated his First Amendment rights. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Watters sided with the plaintiff, stating that the state failed to prove the risks of generative AI could not be managed through less restrictive means. The injunction specifically prevents the state from enforcing SB 25 against Bartel and his committee. Following the ruling, Bartel indicated plans to release further AI-generated mailers targeting Democratic candidates in October. The Attorney General’s office, which defended the law, expressed disappointment in the decision and is currently reviewing the ruling to determine potential next steps.

Sources