Federal judge blocks Vermont probe into AI political video, rules it protected satire
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
A federal judge in Vermont blocked the state attorney general's investigation into an AI-generated political video, ruling that the video was clearly protected satire. The video, posted by Henry L. Poitras on June 7, 2026, depicted Representative Becca Balint being dumped into a dumpster by her challenger Mark Coester. The Vermont Attorney General's Office issued a civil investigative demand under the state's new synthetic media disclosure law, 17 V.S.A. § 2032, which requires disclosures for deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media within 90 days of an election. Judge William Sessions found the video fell under the law's exception for satire or parody, as it was obviously 'ridiculous' and not a realistic representation that would deceive a reasonable person. The decision, from the case Poitras v. Clark, was published by Reason Magazine on September 10, 2026.
Source report
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.
The Law in Question
Section 2032 of Vermont's synthetic media law 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 media 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.
Key Definitions
Section 2031 defines terms as follows:
(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 Investigative Demand
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]…
Source
Reason MagazineWestern