Deepfake case law · International research
International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Synthetic media, real legal proceedings.
Explore deepfake legal cases involving images, video, voice cloning and other AI-generated media. This international tracker brings together court decisions, litigation and official reports, including allegations that were disputed or rejected.
On this page
The collection at a glance
Deepfake litigation in context
These charts describe the selected records in this tracker. They count proceedings, not unique incidents: separate civil and regulatory actions may concern the same underlying events.
Charts count the records currently included in the publication feed.
Connection with synthetic media
These categories describe the source-backed connection recorded here. A finding or admission may concern digital manipulation without establishing generative AI. Interim orders and settlements do not establish every allegation.
Proceeding type
One primary category per published proceeding. The collection includes court cases and regulatory action.
Country of forum
Counts reflect available sources and this collection’s selection. They do not measure the frequency of deepfakes in each country.
The database
Deepfake legal cases
All AI law trackers →The table records the case, jurisdiction, procedural or source status, core AI issue and a short summary. Search by case name, country or topic. On a narrow screen, scroll within the table to read the remaining columns.
Dates relate to the event or source described. A judgment, an official sentencing report, a settlement and an allegation are different kinds of material. Sentences may concern wider offending. An older procedural decision is not a statement of the current position in the entire case.
| No | Date | Case Name | Jurisdiction | Country | Status | Core AI Issue | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16/09/2026 | United States v Michael A. Huseman | United States – Federal (E.D. Missouri) | United States | Official sentencing report | AI-generated child sexual abuse material (image) | The US Department of Justice reported an 18-year sentence following a guilty plea to receiving child sexual abuse material. The material included AI-generated files. The sentence concerned the wider offending, not AI-generated files alone. |
| 2 | 18/03/2026 | Burnley v Valentin, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00160 (E.D. Va. 18 March 2026) | United States – Federal (E.D. Virginia) | United States | Decision/Judgment | Alleged AI voice cloning and call authentication (audio) | A party alleged that a disputed call used an AI-cloned voice. After receiving evidence and holding a hearing, the court found the recording authentic and materially unaltered. |
| 3 | 17/02/2026 | R v Teixeira | United Kingdom – Lewes Crown Court | United Kingdom | Official sentencing report | AI-generated child sexual abuse material in online groups (image) | An NCA report said AI-generated images featured among material shared in online groups. The wider offending resulted in 11 years and four months’ imprisonment. |
| 4 | 17/02/2026 | Matter of M.S. (M.H.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00825 | United States – New York Court of Appeals | United States | Decision/Judgment | Authentication of third-party videos and deepfake concerns (video) | New York’s Court of Appeals held that three videos were not properly authenticated, reversed the abuse findings and dismissed the petitions. The court did not find that the videos were fabricated or generated by AI. |
| 5 | 9/2/2026 | Kohls v Ellison, No. 25-1300 (8th Cir.) | United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | United States | Denial of preliminary injunction affirmed | Election deepfake speech law challenge | The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to Minnesota’s election deepfake law. The decision addressed standing and delay; it did not decide the statute’s constitutionality. |
| 6 | 27/01/2026 | United States v Daniel Joseph Broadway | United States – Federal (W.D. North Carolina) | United States | Official sentencing report | AI-generated abuse material and alteration of real images | The US Department of Justice reported a 78-month sentence after guilty pleas involving abuse material, including AI-generated images and altered images of real people. The sentence covered the wider offending, not AI-generated files alone. |
| 7 | 19/12/2025 | R v Castell | United Kingdom – Lewes Crown Court | United Kingdom | Media sentencing report | AI-generated child sexual abuse material (image) | A report citing Sussex Police describes AI-generated abuse imagery among the material in the case. The December 2025 offending resulted in an 18-month prison sentence suspended for two years. |
| 8 | 11/12/2025 | R v Cornelius | United Kingdom – Chester Crown Court | United Kingdom | Official sentencing report | AI-generated child sexual abuse material and prompts (image) | An NCA report recorded more than 43,000 indecent images, including AI-generated material and prompts. The wider offending resulted in three and a half years’ imprisonment. |
| 9 | 17/11/2025 | Raj Shamani & Anr v John Doe / Ashok Kumar & Ors, CS(COMM) 1233/2025 | India – Delhi High Court | India | Ex parte ad-interim order (dated order) | Deepfake thumbnails/videos (video) | Delhi High Court granted ex parte interim relief in a personality-rights suit alleging infringing content and AI-enabled deepfake material, including takedown directions and platform compliance steps. |
| 10 | 10/10/2025 | Sudhir Chaudhary v Meta Platforms Inc & Ors, CS(COMM) 1089/2025 | India – Delhi High Court | India | Ex parte ad-interim order (dated order) | AI deepfake impersonation (video) | Delhi High Court recorded allegations of deepfake videos misusing a journalist’s name/voice/likeness and issued interim directions including takedown and subscriber-information disclosure to identify uploaders. |
| 11 | 26/09/2025 | eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 4) [2025] FCA 1191 | Australia – Federal | Australia | Civil penalty; official regulator report | Non-consensual deepfake intimate images (image) | The regulator reported a Federal Court penalty of A$343,500 plus costs after admissions to posting deepfake images of Australian women. This entry records the civil enforcement proceeding. |
| 12 | 25/09/2025 | Evans v. Robertson, et al. | United States – Federal (E.D. Michigan) | United States | Report and recommendation (dated document) | Deepfake pornography (harassment/defamation) | A magistrate judge’s report considered allegations of intimate deepfakes in an online-harassment dispute. It recommended partial dismissal, including for lack of personal jurisdiction over the deepfake-related claims. It did not determine whether those allegations were true. |
| 13 | 09/09/2025 | Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield, Inc., et al. (No. 23CV028772) | United States – California | United States | Decision/Judgment | Deepfakes and altered images submitted as evidence (video/image) | The court found that false evidence, including deepfake exhibits, had been submitted in support of summary judgment. It imposed terminating sanctions and dismissed the action with prejudice. |
| 14 | 29/08/2025 | Kohls v Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal.) | United States – Federal (E.D. California) | United States | Summary judgment and permanent injunction (dated order) | Constitutional challenge to political deepfake legislation (audio/video) | In its 29 August 2025 order concerning AB 2839, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently restrained enforcement against the named plaintiffs. This entry concerns regulation of manipulated political media, not a finding that a party fabricated court evidence. |
| 15 | 14/08/2025 | Supreme Court of Korea, 2024도17801 (2025. 8. 14.) | South Korea – Supreme Court | South Korea | Prosecutor’s appeal dismissed | Legal classification of sexually explicit composite images | The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal concerning sexually explicit composite images using a minor’s face. It distinguished statutory categories of child sexual exploitation material and left the alternative edited-image conviction undisturbed. |
| 16 | 10/07/2025 | Lehrman et al. v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.) | United States – Federal (S.D.N.Y.) | United States | Partial dismissal ruling (dated opinion) | Alleged unauthorised AI voice cloning (audio) | A civil complaint alleged unauthorised use of voice recordings to create AI clones. On a motion to dismiss, the court allowed some claims to proceed and dismissed others. |
| 17 | 29/04/2025 | Doe One, et al. v. The Nature Conservancy, et al. | United States – Federal (D. Minnesota) | United States | Leave to amend granted in part | Deepfake sexual images (workplace harassment) | In a workplace action alleging sexually explicit deepfake images, the court allowed several amended claims to proceed but refused the proposed negligent-infliction claim. The order concerned pleading sufficiency, not proof that the alleged conduct occurred. |
| 18 | 04/04/2025 | R v Tyler | United Kingdom – Chelmsford Crown Court | United Kingdom | Media sentencing report | Non-consensual AI-generated intimate images (image) | The BBC reported that the offending involved creating and sharing non-consensual AI-generated intimate images. The wider offending resulted in five years’ imprisonment. |
| 19 | 26/03/2025 | League of Women Voters of New Hampshire et al. v. Kramer et al. | United States – Federal (D. New Hampshire) | United States | Motion to dismiss denied (dated order) | AI voice-clone robocall voter suppression | The court denied two service-provider defendants’ motion to dismiss a civil action concerning political voice-clone robocalls. The ruling addressed standing and the sufficiency of the claims; it did not finally determine liability. |
| 20 | 05/12/2024 | Young v NeoCortext, Inc., No. 23-55772 (9th Cir.) | United States – Federal (Ninth Circuit) | United States | Procedural appeal; denial of anti-SLAPP motion affirmed | Face-swapping app and alleged unauthorised use of likeness (image/video) | The Ninth Circuit affirmed refusal to strike a publicity-rights claim concerning the Reface face-swapping app. The decision assessed the pleaded claim and available defences at a preliminary stage; it did not finally determine liability. |
| 21 | 28/10/2024 | R v Nelson | United Kingdom – Bolton Crown Court | United Kingdom | Official sentencing report | AI-altered photographs used to create child sexual abuse material (image) | The CPS reported that AI and editing software were used to turn photographs of real children into abusive images that were sold or shared. The wider offending resulted in 18 years’ imprisonment plus an extended licence. |
| 22 | 21/08/2024 | In the Matter of Lingo Telecom, LLC (EB‑TCD‑24‑00036425) (DA 24‑790) | United States – Federal (FCC) | United States | Regulatory settlement | AI-generated political robocalls and caller-ID authentication (audio) | The FCC resolved an investigation into incorrect caller-ID attestations connected with spoofed robocalls carrying an AI-generated political message. The consent decree imposed a US$1 million civil penalty and compliance plan. |
| 23 | 13/08/2024 | Mooney v State, 487 Md. 701, 321 A.3d 91 (2024) | United States – Supreme Court of Maryland | United States | Decision/Judgment | AI-era authentication of surveillance footage (video) | The court held that surveillance video could be authenticated through circumstantial evidence. It discussed AI-generated manipulation as a future concern, but no AI use was alleged in the case. |
| 24 | 26/07/2024 | Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures LLP & Ors., COM IPR Suit (L) 23443/2024 | India – Bombay High Court | India | Ex parte ad-interim order (dated order) | AI voice models, synthetic impersonation and personality rights (audio/image/video) | The Bombay High Court granted ex parte ad-interim protection in a personality-rights suit involving alleged misuse of the singer’s voice and likeness, including AI voice models and synthetic media. The order was interim and contained exceptions and limits; it was not a final determination against every defendant. |
| 25 | 18/06/2024 | Main Sequence, Ltd. et al. v. Dudesy, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal.) | United States – Federal (C.D. Cal.) | United States | Consent judgment and permanent injunction | Alleged synthetic impersonation in a comedy special (audio) | A consent judgment imposed a permanent injunction concerning a disputed comedy special and unauthorised use of the performer’s likeness. The agreed resolution did not determine contested questions about how AI was used. |
| 26 | 30/04/2024 | United States v. Smelko (W.D. Pa.) | United States – Federal (W.D. Pa.) | United States | Official sentencing report | Morphed child sexual abuse material (image) | The US Department of Justice reported a sentence of 14 years and seven months for possessing abusive material that included digitally morphed images of a real child. The source describes digital morphing; it does not establish use of modern generative AI. |
| 27 | 30/04/2024 | Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023 | India – Delhi High Court | India | Permanent injunction against specified defendants; other claims continued | AI, deepfakes, face morphing and personality rights (audio/image/video) | The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against specified defendants in a personality-rights suit that included alleged AI and deepfake misuse. The 30 April 2024 order followed interim protection in September 2023. It did not dispose of the proceedings against every defendant. |
| 28 | 27/04/2023 | Sz Huang et al. v Tesla, Inc. et al., No. 19CV346663 (Cal. Super. Ct. 27 April 2023) | United States – California Superior Court, Santa Clara County | United States | Tentative discovery ruling | Generalised deepfake objection to recorded statements (audio/video) | A tentative discovery ruling rejected a generalised deepfake objection to recorded public statements and proposed a limited deposition. The cited document is a tentative ruling, not the final signed order. |
The public table keeps these eight fields. I maintain a separate research table with further source notes, classifications and review details, available on request through the contact page. Records awaiting source checks are excluded from the publication feed and charts.
What is included
Deepfakes in court and beyond
This deepfake case law tracker follows both the use of synthetic media and disputes about whether material is genuine. It also records legal proceedings about synthetic-media services and regulation. The connection with deepfakes is identified in each entry, rather than assumed from a case’s inclusion.
Evidence & authenticity
Allegations that recordings or images are fabricated, disputes over deepfake-detector results, and cases in which a court accepted or rejected an authenticity challenge.
Voice & identity
AI voice cloning, synthetic impersonation, face-swapping and disputes about the use of a person’s voice, image or likeness.
Intimate imagery & abuse
Public legal materials concerning non-consensual intimate deepfakes and AI-generated abuse material. No abusive media is reproduced on this page.
Elections & public debate
Political robocalls, manipulated political media, regulatory enforcement and challenges to legislation affecting synthetic content.
Civil claims & remedies
Publicity, personality, copyright and related claims. Pleadings and interim decisions remain distinct from final findings and agreed settlements.
Criminal & regulatory outcomes
Dated convictions, sentencing materials, official enforcement reports and settlements. The record identifies the outcome described by its source.
How the collection is maintained
Sources, scope and updates
Sources and attribution
Judgments, orders and official legal materials are preferred. Official prosecutor, police and regulator reports are identified as reports, not represented as the full court decision. Where a record relies on reporting or a reproduced document, that source type matters.
Allegations and findings
A claim that evidence is a deepfake is recorded as a claim unless the source establishes more. A rejected allegation remains relevant to this collection. A settlement or procedural ruling is not converted into a finding of AI use or liability.
A selected research collection
Coverage depends on public sources and the materials identified. It is not an exhaustive register. Jurisdictional differences in publication and access affect what can be recorded. The collection cannot establish global prevalence or comparative rates of harm.
Updates and corrections
Records may be updated as further public material becomes available. Research and drafting may be assisted by AI tools. Please use the contact page to identify an error, missing source, duplicate or later development, including the relevant case and public material.
Suggested citation: Matthew Lee, “International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker”, Natural & Artificial Law, first published 22 February 2026, accessed [your access date]. Cite the particular judgment or report separately when discussing that source.
Understanding the tracker
Common questions
What is the International Deepfake Case Law Database?
A collection of dated court decisions, litigation materials, criminal cases and regulatory action concerning deepfakes and other synthetic media. It includes alleged, suspected, reported and established uses, together with relevant authenticity disputes and legal challenges to regulation.
Does inclusion mean a deepfake was proved?
No. Some records concern rejected allegations or a discussion of deepfake risks where no synthetic material was established. Other entries concern findings, admissions, official reports or unresolved claims. Those categories must be read separately.
Does this tracker cover more than fake video?
Yes. Its scope includes synthetic audio and voice cloning, manipulated or generated images, face-swapping and video. It also includes related digitally morphed material where that context is made clear. The presence of altered media does not itself establish the use of generative AI.
Are all records judgments?
No. The collection can include court orders, sentencing reports, pleadings, regulatory settlements and reliable reporting. An interim order, a party’s allegation and a final judgment have different meanings. The status and source description identify the kind of record being summarised.
Does the tracker contain deepfake images or recordings?
No abusive deepfake media is hosted or embedded here. This page summarises legal materials. It does not reproduce intimate imagery, abuse material or disputed recordings.
Is the database a measure of how common deepfakes are?
No. It is a selected research collection shaped by public access, reporting and source availability. Counts describe records in the collection, not the number of incidents worldwide, national prevalence or a success rate in litigation.
Can I request further research notes or suggest a correction?
Yes. Use the contact page to identify the entry and provide a public source or the correction requested. Further source notes may be requested. The public table remains a concise overview.
Where can I find the other AI law trackers?
The AI Law Trackers Hub links to the complete collection, including AI hallucination cases, judicial AI, AI equality and the trackers asking whether AI will replace lawyers or judges. A hub link is also provided at the top and bottom of this page.
Is this legal advice?
Nothing here is legal advice. These are legal reports and commentary. Professional instructions to Matthew Lee are through his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
Continue exploring
Other AI law trackers
Explore the wider collection of AI legal cases and public material. The AI Law Trackers Hub provides the main route to all trackers.
AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
International · False legal material
UK AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
United Kingdom · Courts & tribunals
Judicial AI Use Tracker
Judges · Courts · Judicial bodies
Government AI Hallucination Tracker
Government · Reports · Public information
Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
Public views · Lawyers · Legal tasks
Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker
Public views · Judicial functions
AI Equality, Bias and AI Discrimination Case Tracker
Equality · Bias · Accessibility
AI Privilege & Confidentiality Tracker
Prompts · Outputs · Protected information
AI Prompt Injection & Hidden Text Legal Tracker
Hidden instructions · Adversarial prompts
AI Expert Evidence Case Law & Court Guidance Tracker
Expert material · Reliability · Evidence
AI Agents, Autonomous Transactions & Liability Tracker
Agents · Automated actions · Responsibility
AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
Public decisions · Biometrics · Rights
AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker
Legal status · Rights · Personhood
AI Chatbot Harm, Wrongful Death & Safety Litigation Tracker
Chatbots · Alleged harm · SafetyResearch by area of law
The AI Law Reports
The AI Law Reports offers another route into AI legal cases and commentary, organised by legal subject. Its ten registries connect the technology questions in these trackers with different areas of legal practice.
Employment law
Work, recruitment and workplace disputes.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsCriminal law
Criminal proceedings and AI-related material.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsHousing & property
Housing, land and property disputes.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsPublic law
Public bodies and administrative decisions.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsIntellectual property
Copyright, inventorship and creative work.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsTort & liability
Civil wrongs and questions of responsibility.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsFamily law
Family proceedings and related AI issues.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsTax law
Tax disputes and tribunal proceedings.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsCivil litigation & procedure
Court process, evidence and litigation practice.
Open registry →AI Law ReportsImmigration & asylum
Immigration decisions and asylum proceedings.
Open registry →Key Takeaway
The International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker records public legal cases, judgments, prosecutions, civil claims, regulatory enforcement actions and reported litigation involving alleged, suspected, reported or confirmed deepfakes and other AI-generated synthetic media, including audio, video and images. Inclusion in this tracker does not mean that a court has found that a deepfake was used, that an allegation was proven, or that any party acted unlawfully. Each entry should be read by reference to the linked source. Readers should carry out their own checks before relying on any entry, including checking the linked source, the procedural status of the case, and whether the source has been updated, corrected, appealed, withdrawn or superseded.
Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring Publication Date: 22 February 2026 Last Verified: 5 September 2026 Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister) click here for details.
Ad/Marketing Communication regarding International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker.
International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
This International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker covers legal cases in which deepfakes or AI-generated synthetic media are relevant to the proceedings. That includes cases where alleged or confirmed deepfakes are used as evidence, cases involving non-consensual intimate deepfakes, voice-cloning disputes, AI-generated abuse material, election or political deepfake robocalls, impersonation claims, copyright and publicity-right disputes, regulatory enforcement, sentencing remarks, and procedural decisions about authenticity or admissibility. Further details below.
How to read the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
The status column gives a short indication of the procedural or source status of each entry, such as whether the matter involved a judgment, sentencing outcome, settlement, regulatory action, official report or other public source. Inclusion in this tracker does not mean that every alleged deepfake was proved, that every issue was determined by a court, or that any person or organisation acted unlawfully. Each entry should be read together with the linked source. The wording in the tracker is a summary of public source material and should not be treated as a finding of fact by me.
Methodology of the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
I use a primary-source-first approach where possible. Judgments, court orders, sentencing remarks, tribunal decisions, regulator decisions, prosecutor statements, police reports, official enforcement materials and court documents are preferred. Where no primary legal source is publicly available, reliable media, professional commentary or other third-party sources may be included, but those sources should be checked carefully before reliance is placed on them.
The tracker is maintained manually and may be assisted by research tools, including AI tools. I check entries before publication, but I do not warrant that the tracker is comprehensive, complete, current or error-free. Nothing is legal advice please see legal disclaimer. The public tracker summarises and signposts source material. It is not a substitute for reading the linked material.
Source Hierarchy of the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Primary legal sources are preferred. Official court, tribunal, regulator, prosecutor, police and law-enforcement sources are prioritised where available. Some entries may rely on reliable media, professional commentary or other third-party sources where no primary legal source is publicly available. Readers should check the linked source before relying on any entry.
Use of AI, Human Review and Corrections
I may use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, checking, formatting and organisation of this tracker. AI tools can produce inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or misleading material. Entries are reviewed before publication, but errors and omissions may still occur. If you identify an error, missing source, broken link, duplicate entry, changed procedural status or material update, please contact me so that the tracker can be reviewed and, where appropriate, corrected.
No Hosting of Deepfake Media
This page does not host, reproduce, embed or encourage the circulation of deepfake images, videos, audio files or other abusive material. It summarises and links to public legal sources for the purposes of legal commentary, research, accountability and public understanding.
Legal Themes Monitored
The tracker monitors legal issues including deepfakes as evidence in court, synthetic media and false evidence, voice cloning and impersonation, non-consensual intimate deepfakes, AI-generated abuse material, political deepfakes and election robocalls, copyright and publicity-right disputes, regulatory enforcement, criminal sentencing, online safety, authenticity disputes and the use of AI-generated material in civil and criminal proceedings.
Jurisdiction Monitored
The tracker is international. It currently includes public materials from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and other jurisdictions where relevant legal source material is available. The jurisdictional scope may expand as further public legal materials are identified.
How to Cite This Tracker
Suggested citation: Matthew Lee, “International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker”, Natural & Artificial Law, first published 22 February 2026, last verified [date above].
Related AI Law Trackers
This tracker forms part of the wider Natural & Artificial Law AI law legal articles project, which monitors public legal developments involving artificial intelligence, hallucinated legal authorities, judicial AI use, AI discrimination, government AI errors and related issues.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker?
It is an active legal database and monitoring tool maintained by barrister Matthew Lee. The tracker catalogs international court cases, judgments, and settlements that specifically deal with deepfakes and artificial intelligence-generated media (audio, video, and images) across various jurisdictions, including the UK, US, and Australia.
What types of legal issues are covered in the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker?
The tracker covers a broad spectrum of civil, criminal, and regulatory legal issues involving synthetic media. Key topics include election-interference via AI robocalls, the submission of deepfakes as false evidence in court and unauthorised voice cloning (copyright and publicity rights).
Does the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker only monitor criminal offenses?
No, the tracker includes both criminal and civil/regulatory matters. Alongside criminal convictions, it highlights civil disputes such as the George Carlin AI-impersonation lawsuit (Main Sequence, Ltd. v. Dudesy, LLC) for copyright and publicity violations, regulatory fines by the FCC for AI robocalls, and cases where civil courts have issued sanctions against parties for intentionally submitting deepfakes as false evidence.
Can I use the International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker as official legal advice?
No. The database and its contents are published as general legal commentary and educational reporting on the use of AI within the justice system. The site explicitly states that nothing on it constitutes legal advice, and the author (Matthew Lee) is not authorised for direct public access. Matthew can only be instructed for legal work through his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
Does inclusion in this tracker mean that a deepfake allegation has been proved?
No. Inclusion means that deepfakes, alleged deepfakes, AI-generated synthetic media or related issues appear in public legal source material or credible public reporting. It does not mean that a court has accepted the allegation, that liability has been established, or that any person or organisation has acted unlawfully
Are all entries based on court judgments?
No. Some entries are based on judgments, orders or sentencing materials. Others may be based on official enforcement documents, prosecutor or police reports, pleadings, settlements, regulatory materials, professional commentary or reliable public reporting. Readers should check the linked source for the status of each entry.
What types of legal issues are covered?
The tracker covers civil, criminal, regulatory and procedural issues involving synthetic media. Topics include deepfake evidence, alleged false evidence, voice cloning, impersonation, non-consensual intimate deepfakes, AI-generated abuse material, political robocalls, copyright claims, publicity-right claims, sentencing, enforcement and authenticity disputes.
