Warnings can make people more skeptical of misleading content. However, whether that affects what they share or how they vote is a separate question.
A 2025 study tested warning labels on misleading AI-generated images in two experiments involving 7,579 Americans. People who saw the labels were less likely to believe the posts’ claims. However, warnings that simply identified content as AI-generated did little to change how willing people said they were to engage with it, including sharing it.
Warning labels can also raise doubts about accurate information. Another recent study found that people rated headlines as less accurate when they were labeled as AI-generated, regardless of whether the headlines were true or false. Knowing that AI helped produce something does not tell a reader whether its claims are correct.
Neither study tested whether a state’s disclosure law changes how people vote. The studies also cannot tell us whether the threat of punishment under Maryland’s law discourages people from creating or spreading deepfakes.
Deepfake enforcement
Passing a law also does not settle whether officials can enforce it.
In September 2026, a federal judge temporarily barred Montana from enforcing its deepfake law, finding that it likely posed a threat to a conservative PAC’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.
For voters, gaps in what disclosure laws cover mean that a video without an AI warning has not necessarily passed an authenticity test. The disclosure rule might not cover it, as with congressional candidates under Louisiana’s provision.
Moreover, someone may have ignored the law. A warning’s absence cannot tell viewers of the AI content which explanation applies.
So, back to that video of a candidate apparently admitting to taking a bribe.
It could still reach voters under both Louisiana’s and Maryland’s laws. In Louisiana, a video covered by the disclosure rule can circulate with the required warning. In Maryland, creating or spreading it could lead to punishment if the law’s conditions are not met. Neither approach guarantees that voters will avoid seeing the fabricated confession before casting their ballots.
These laws give states ways to respond to deception, but their passage alone cannot guarantee voters that what they are watching is real.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stefani Langehennig is an assistant professor of the practice in the Business Information & Analytics Department at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.