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the linked source, the procedural status of the case, and whether the source has been updated, corrected, appealed, withdrawn or superseded.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
Latest Case Chronologically: R v Flett, 2026 ABKB 296
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 | 17/04/2026 | R v Flett, 2026 ABKB 296 | Canada – Alberta | Canada | Decision/Judgment | Alleged AI alteration of Snapchat evidence (video) | The court held that Snapchat recordings were sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial evidence. A suggestion that AI might have altered them was unsupported and went to weight, not admissibility. |
| 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 | 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 highest court held that three videos had not been properly authenticated and dismissed the petitions. It did not find that the videos were fabricated or AI-generated. |
| 5 | 4/2/2026 | Head v John Doe, 2026 BCSC 184 | Canada – British Columbia | Canada | Decision/Judgment | Online deepfake-detector output and forensic authentication (video) | An unexplained online “Deepfake Detected” result was given no weight. Witness and forensic evidence supported the finding that the collision video had not been edited. |
| 6 | 19/12/2025 | R v Castell | Crown Court | United Kingdom | Official sentencing report | AI-generated child sexual abuse material (image) | Police reported that the case involved an AI-generated abusive image and AI image software. The wider offending resulted in an 18-month sentence, suspended for two years. |
| 7 | 11/12/2025 | R v Cornelius | 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. |
| 8 | 11/12/2025 | R v Medow, 2025 ONCJ 661 | Canada – Ontario | Canada | Decision/Judgment | Alleged AI manipulation of police recordings (video) | The court admitted police video after finding that witness evidence met the authentication threshold. The suggestion that the recordings had been manipulated using AI was unsupported. |
| 9 | 26/09/2025 | eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 4) [2025] FCA 1191 | Australia – Federal | Australia | Decision/Judgment | Non-consensual deepfake intimate images (image) | Following admissions, the Federal Court imposed an A$343,500 civil penalty for posting 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images online. |
| 10 | 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 submitted exhibits included deepfake videos and altered images, and dismissed the action with prejudice as a terminating sanction. |
| 11 | 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 | Procedural ruling | 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. |
| 12 | 07/05/2025 | R v Cheng, 2025 ONCJ 252 | Canada – Ontario | Canada | Decision/Judgment | Alleged alteration of home-surveillance footage (video) | The court admitted home-surveillance footage after accepting witness and source-device evidence. The suggestion that it had been altered or created as a deepfake was unsupported. |
| 13 | 04/04/2025 | R vTyler | 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. |
| 14 | 28/10/2024 | R v Nelson | 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. |
| 15 | 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. |
| 16 | 19/08/2024 | Paynter v Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency), 2024 FPSLREB 116 | Canada – Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board | Canada | Decision/Judgment | Alleged deepfake workplace CCTV (video) | The Board rejected an allegation that workplace CCTV was a deepfake after comparing the recording with contemporaneous records and witness evidence. |
| 17 | 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. |
| 18 | 22/02/2024 | R v MD, 2024 ABKB 104 | Canada – Alberta | Canada | Consent judgment | Alleged synthetic voice impersonation (audio) | A civil complaint alleged that a comedy special used a synthetic imitation of a deceased performer. The case ended by consent judgment and permanent injunction, without a contested ruling on AI use. |
| 19 | 25/01/2024 | Main Sequence, Ltd. et al. v. Dudesy, LLC et al. (C.D. Cal.) | United States – Federal (C.D. Cal.) | United States | Decision/Judgment | Alleged AI fabrication of a recorded conversation (audio) | The court rejected as entirely speculative a defence suggestion that an audio recording had been fabricated using AI. |
| 20 | 19/07/2023 | United States v. Smelko (W.D. Pa.) | United States – Federal (W.D. Pa.) | United States | Procedural ruling | Morphed child sexual abuse material (image) | The court rejected constitutional challenges to federal provisions covering morphed images of an identifiable minor and denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. |
| 21 | 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 | Procedural ruling | Generalised deepfake objection to recorded statements (audio/video) | The court rejected general reliance on the possibility of deepfakes as a reason not to admit or deny recorded public statements, and ordered a limited deposition. |
| 22 | 14/04/2023 | R. c. Larouche, 2023 QCCQ 1853 | Quebec | Canada | Sentencing judgment | Deepfake child sexual abuse material (video) | Following guilty pleas, the court imposed an overall eight-year prison sentence for several child sexual abuse material offences, including making deepfake videos. |
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.
