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the linked source, the procedural status of the case, and whether the source has been updated, corrected, appealed, withdrawn or superseded.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: 30 May 2026
Latest Case Chronologically: R v Teixeira
Latest Legal Article: Introducing the Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister) click here for details.
Scope: International legal cases involving alleged, suspected, reported or confirmed deepfakes or AI-generated synthetic media
Source policy: Primary legal sources preferred. Official court, tribunal, regulator, prosecutor or law-enforcement sources are prioritised. Reliable media and secondary sources are flagged where no primary source is publicly available.
No deepfake media hosted: This tracker summarises public legal sources and does not reproduce deepfake images, videos, audio or abusive material.
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.
| No | Date | Case Name | Jurisdiction | Country | Status | Core AI Issue | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2024-08-21 | In the Matter of Lingo Telecom, LLC (EB‑TCD‑24‑00036425) (DA 24‑790) | United States – Federal (FCC) | United States | Settled | Election-interference deepfake robocalls (audio) | FCC Enforcement Bureau adopted a consent decree resolving its investigation (and the earlier proposed forfeiture notice) over Lingo’s transmission of spoofed robocalls carrying a ‘deepfake’ AI-cloned voice message, imposing a civil penalty and compliance plan. |
| 2 | 2025-09-09 | Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield, Inc., et al. (No. 23CV028772) | United States – California | United States | Decision/Judgment | Deepfakes used as evidence (video) | Submitted evidence suspected to be GenAI ‘deepfakes’ and ultimately issued terminating sanctions for intentionally submitting false evidence. |
| 3 | 2026-02-17 | R v Teixeira | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Sentenced | AI-generated CSAM referenced in sentencing (image) | NCA reported the offender participated in online child-abuse chat groups where abusive material was shared, including AI‑generated images. He was sentenced to 11 years and 4 months’ imprisonment |
| 4 | 2025-12-11 | R v Cornelius | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Sentenced | AI-generated CSAM + prompts found (image) | An NCA investigation found the offender possessed over 43,000 indecent child images, including AI‑generated abuse material and prompts used to create AI images. He was sentenced to 3.5 years at Chester Crown Court |
| 5 | 2025-12-19 | R v Castell | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Sentenced | AI-generated CSAM creation/distribution (image) | Sussex Police reported the offender used AI image-generation software and possessed/distributed indecent child images, including an AI‑generated image. He was sentenced at Lewes Crown Court to an 18‑month prison term suspended for two years, plus a SHPO |
| 6 | 2025-04-04 | R v Brandon | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Sentenced | Non-consensual deepfake intimate images (image) | BBC reported 5 years imprisonment for creating and sharing non-consensual AI ‘deepfake’ intimate images of women he knew. |
| 7 | 2024-10-28 | R v Nelson | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Sentenced | AI-altered photos used to create CSAM (image) | CPS report the offender used AI and software to alter photographs of real children to create abusive images and distributed them online. He was sentenced at Bolton Crown Court to 18 years’ imprisonment plus extended licence |
| 8 | 2025-09-26 | eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 4) [2025] FCA 1191 | Australia – Federal | Australia | Decision/Judgment | Non-consensual deepfake intimate images (image/video) | Federal Court made declarations and imposed a civil penalty after admissions that non-consensual deepfake intimate images were posted online, treating the conduct as serious and anonymising the website. |
| 9 | 2023-07-19 | United States v. Smelko (W.D. Pa.) | United States – Federal (W.D. Pa.) | United States | Decision/Judgment | Morphed/composite CSAM (“morphed material”) (image) | Court denied a motion to dismiss challenging the federal “child pornography” definition as applied to “morphed material” depicting an identifiable minor. |
| 10 | 2024-01-25 | Main Sequence, Ltd. et al. v. Dudesy, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal.) | United States – Federal (C.D. Cal.) | United States | Settled | AI-generated voice impersonation (audio) | Estate filed a civil complaint alleging use of an AI-generated or otherwise synthetic George Carlin sound-alike and script. |
| 11 | 2025-07-10 | Lehrman et al. v. Lovo, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03770 (S.D.N.Y.) | United States – Federal (S.D.N.Y.) | United States | Decision/Judgment | Voice cloning without consent (audio) | Alleged unauthorised voice cloning; SDNY allowed several state-law and contract claims to proceed and permitted amendment on certain copyright-training claims. |
| 12 | 2023-04-14 | R. c. Larouche, 2023 QCCQ 1853 | Quebec | Quebec | Sentenced | Deepfake CSAM | Court imposed an 8-year prison sentence |
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.
