Michigan's 2024 AI campaign law forces sponsors to disclose synthetic ads but says nothing about defamation. A candidate's $150,000 suit tests whether a label shields the video.
Michigan's 2024 campaign-finance law requires sponsors to label AI-generated political advertisements. It does not prohibit them. State Senate candidate Jason Tunney's $150,000 deepfake lawsuit against an opponent in Michigan's 35th district will now test what that label actually covers.
Tunney filed the suit in May 2026 over AI-generated videos depicting him, MLive reported. The Michigan State Police opened a separate probe into the same videos, according to ABC 12. Neither step answers whether the videos are legal. Michigan's MCL 169.259 obligates sponsors to disclose that AI generated or substantially altered a political ad, per the statute. It does not address whether the depiction itself is false, defamatory, or satirical. An Elias Law Group client alert flagged that asymmetry when the bill took effect.
MCL 169.259 covers the label, not the underlying content. Michigan sits at one end of a small set of states that have legislated directly on synthetic media in elections. Minnesota took the other path with a near-total prohibition on deepfakes tied to candidates. The Council of State Governments' Midwest office laid out the contrast in 2024; Michigan checks the label, Minnesota checks the content. The structural gap is the answer each statute produces: Michigan tells voters what tools were used. Minnesota tells candidates what they cannot release.
If a Tunney defendant shows the videos carried the required AI label, MCL 169.259 offers the plaintiff little. The defamation claim turns on common-law tests: identification, context, fault. No published Michigan decision has resolved what compliance looks like when a satire label sits next to content framed as documentary footage. The Michigan State Police inquiry runs on a separate criminal track. NPR's reporting, re-aired by KAZU, pointed to the same gap between what the statute requires and what 2026 voters see.
The first contested motion in Tunney's case will decide what MCL 169.259's disclaimer buys a defendant. The statutory answer is unclear; the question is whether the required label cuts off a defamation claim or leaves the underlying depiction exposed to common-law liability. Disclosure-only states have no test case yet. The Tunney docket is the first read on whether a properly labeled synthetic ad can still be defamable under Michigan common law.