A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 16.1-10-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to false political advertisements; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1583 would revise North Dakota’s law on false political advertisements. It keeps the existing prohibition on knowingly or recklessly publishing political ads or news releases that contain untrue, deceptive, or misleading factual assertions, including statements about a candidate’s prior public record, but broadens and clarifies the language to cover a wider range of election-related communications and media formats. The bill expressly includes ads or releases published through radio, television, newspapers, text messages, telephone calls, pamphlets, signs, billboards, websites, electronic transmissions, social media, and other public or commercial means.
The bill also preserves the criminal penalty, making a violation a class A misdemeanor, and it adds a civil remedy for a candidate targeted by a false, deceptive, or misleading advertisement. A successful candidate plaintiff could recover civil damages and be awarded full costs and attorney’s fees incurred during the lawsuit. The measure would not apply to a newspaper, television or radio station, or other commercial medium that is not the source of the political advertisement or news release.
If enacted, HB 1583 would amend section 16.1-10-04 of the North Dakota Century Code by expanding and modernizing the state’s false political advertising statute. It would affect candidates, political campaigns, ballot measure committees, and anyone publishing election-related messages, while also creating potential liability for civil damages in addition to the existing misdemeanor penalty. Media outlets that merely carry ads without being the source would remain exempt.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or opposition. The bill ultimately failed on April 2, 2025, which indicates it did not advance to enactment despite being introduced with bipartisan sponsorship from House and Senate members.
The main policy issue likely centered on balancing election-integrity enforcement against free-speech concerns and the risk of litigation over political messaging. The bill’s expansion to cover a broad array of media, including social media and electronic transmissions, and its addition of civil damages and attorney’s fees could have raised concerns about chilling political speech or encouraging lawsuits. At the same time, supporters likely viewed it as a tool to deter knowingly false or misleading campaign advertising and protect candidates and voters from deceptive election communications.