Federal judge halts Vermont probe into Planet Hank AI satire video

The ruling is the first significant courtroom test of Act 75, Vermont’s new law aimed at deceptive synthetic election media.

A federal judge has stopped Vermont officials from pursuing an inquiry into a political satire video made with artificial intelligence, ruling that the clip was likely protected by the First Amendment and appeared to fit the state law’s satire exception.

Senior U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III said in a decision issued Tuesday that the state’s interest in policing election deception is diminished when the material at issue is plainly absurd and meant as parody. He used that reasoning to block Attorney General Charity Clark’s office from enforcing a civil investigative demand against Hank Poitras, the creator who posts political content under the name Planet Hank.

The ruling is the first significant courtroom test of Act 75, Vermont’s new law aimed at deceptive synthetic election media. Passed in March, the measure requires certain digitally generated political material that harms a candidate’s reputation and appears within 90 days of an election to carry a disclosure. Sessions did not strike down the law overall, but his order raises early limits on how far the state can go when the content is clearly comedic.

Poitras published the video, titled Mark Helps Vermont Take Out The Trash, on June 7, two months before Vermont’s Aug. 11 primary. The clip uses AI-made images of U.S. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., and then-Republican U.S. House candidate Mark Coester. In the sequence, Coester attacks Balint’s campaign and policies before using an excavator to dump her into a trash bin outside the Vermont Statehouse.

Five days after the post appeared, Clark’s office told Poitras it was looking into whether the video violated Act 75 and said the matter could be closed if he added the required disclosure. Poitras responded by filing suit on July 8, arguing that forcing him to change the video under the threat of penalties violated his constitutional rights.

Sessions concluded that Poitras is likely to prevail on his claim that the investigation infringed the First Amendment. He also wrote that the visual and audio style of the video, along with the exaggerated behavior and implausible scenes, made its satirical intent obvious.

The order is narrow. It covers only the June 7 video and the investigative demand that followed it. Poitras’ broader lawsuit still challenges Act 75 on multiple constitutional grounds, including five First Amendment claims and one under the 14th Amendment.

Lawmakers who supported the bill said the decision fits the way they intended the law to work. Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, who backed the measure in the Vermont Senate, said the statute was meant to leave room for clearly satirical content and that a reasonable person would likely see Poitras’ clip that way.

Coester, who later lost the Republican primary to Gerald Malloy, also criticized the investigation on Wednesday. He said the matter placed an unfair burden on ordinary citizens and argued that the video was plainly parody, even if it portrayed him in an unflattering way.

Lauren Jandl, Clark’s chief of staff, said the office was reviewing the ruling and considering its next steps. She added that the attorney general supported the synthetic media disclosure law because of conc

Poitras and his lawyer, Brady Toensing, plan to push for a permanent injunction that would bar Clark from using Act 75 against Poitras and others. erns about transparency and election integrity.