Introduction: The Synthetic Media Explosion#
Deepfakes have evolved from a niche concern to a mainstream crisis. In 2025, the technology to create convincing synthetic video, audio, and images is accessible to anyone with a smartphone. The consequences, damaged reputations, defrauded businesses, manipulated elections, and psychological harm, are no longer hypothetical.
The legal system is responding. Deepfake litigation has grown from a handful of cases to a recognized practice area with emerging precedents, specialized expertise, and evolving legal theories. Here’s where things stand.
The Litigation Landscape#
Case Volume and Types#
Deepfake litigation spans several categories:
Non-Consensual Intimate Images (NCII): The largest category by volume. Plaintiffs, predominantly women, sue creators and platforms over sexually explicit deepfakes. These cases often involve anonymous defendants, jurisdictional challenges, and emotionally devastating subject matter.
Celebrity and Influencer Cases: Public figures sue over unauthorized synthetic media using their likeness for advertising, endorsement, or pornographic purposes. Taylor Swift’s 2024 lawsuit set precedents others are following.
Corporate Fraud: Businesses defrauded by deepfake impersonation (voice cloning, video calls) sue perpetrators and, increasingly, the platforms and tools that enabled the fraud.
Political Manipulation: Campaigns and candidates challenge synthetic media intended to deceive voters. First Amendment complexities make these cases particularly challenging.
Voice Deepfakes: Audio-only synthetic media enables fraud, harassment, and reputational harm with lower technical barriers than video.
Who’s Getting Sued#
The defendant pool is expanding:
Creators: Individual perpetrators face civil and criminal liability, though anonymity and jurisdiction often frustrate enforcement.
Platforms: Social media companies, hosting services, and distribution platforms face claims for failure to remove or prevent deepfake content.
Tool Providers: Companies offering deepfake creation capabilities face product liability and enablement theories.
Employers and Organizations: Entities whose personnel create deepfakes or whose systems are used face vicarious liability claims.
Legal Theories in Play#
Defamation and AI Defamation#
Deepfakes depicting people saying or doing things they never did constitute classic defamation, a false statement of fact that damages reputation. Key issues:
The “Of and Concerning” Element: When a deepfake is obviously fake, is it “of and concerning” the depicted person, or a fictional character with their face?
Opinion vs. Fact: Deepfake “satire” may claim opinion protection, but courts are skeptical when the synthetic nature isn’t obvious.
Damages: Emotional distress, reputational harm, and economic losses are all recoverable, with substantial awards in egregious cases.
Right of Publicity#
State right of publicity laws protect against unauthorized commercial use of a person’s identity. Deepfakes often violate these rights by:
- Using likeness in advertising without consent
- Creating synthetic endorsements
- Generating pornographic content for sale
Right of publicity claims don’t require proving falsity, any unauthorized commercial use suffices.
Copyright#
Copyright theories apply when deepfakes:
- Use copyrighted source material (photos, video, audio)
- Create derivative works of copyrighted content
- Generate synthetic reproductions
The question of whether AI-generated content is itself copyrightable remains contested, with implications for AI copyright broadly.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress#
IIED claims address deepfakes intended to cause severe emotional harm. The “outrageous conduct” element is often easily satisfied when intimate deepfakes target private individuals.
Section 230 and Platform Liability#
The Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 historically shielded platforms from user content liability. But several developments are narrowing this protection:
Knowledge-Based Carve-Outs: Some courts find Section 230 doesn’t protect platforms with actual knowledge of illegal deepfake content.
Tool Provider Liability: Section 230 protects “publishers”, platforms argue deepfake creation tools aren’t “publishing” and may not qualify.
State Law Variations: States are passing deepfake-specific laws with their own platform liability provisions.
State Deepfake Laws#
Over 35 states now have deepfake-specific statutes addressing:
- Non-consensual intimate deepfakes (civil and criminal)
- Election-related synthetic media
- Deepfakes of minors
- Commercial deepfake restrictions
Our state AI law tracker covers these developments.
Emerging Litigation Patterns#
The Platform Liability Breakthrough#
The most significant 2025 development: courts in California, Texas, and New York found platforms liable for deepfake content under limited circumstances. These rulings held that:
- Actual knowledge plus failure to remove can defeat Section 230
- Content moderation duties may be heightened for synthetic media
- Detection capabilities matter, platforms that could identify deepfakes but didn’t may face liability
These rulings remain narrow and will face appellate review, but they signal a shift in the platform liability landscape.
Voice Cloning Litigation Accelerates#
Voice deepfakes enable fraud at scale:
- Impersonating executives to authorize wire transfers
- Creating fake customer service interactions
- Generating synthetic audio “evidence”
- Debt collection harassment
Litigation against voice cloning providers is testing whether providing the capability constitutes negligent enablement.
Criminal Prosecution Increases#
Federal and state prosecutors are bringing more deepfake cases:
- Wire fraud for financial deepfake schemes
- CSAM charges for synthetic child sexual abuse material
- Harassment and stalking for targeted deepfake campaigns
- Election crimes for political disinformation
Criminal exposure adds urgency for corporate compliance.
Class Action Development#
Class actions are emerging for:
- Victims of specific deepfake tools or platforms
- Data subjects whose images trained deepfake models
- Investors in companies damaged by deepfake fraud
Class certification remains challenging given individualized harm, but some cases are proceeding.
Practical Considerations for Plaintiffs#
Identification and Evidence Preservation#
Deepfake litigation often begins with an identification challenge:
- Anonymous creators may use VPNs, cryptocurrency, and overseas hosting
- Content spreads rapidly and may be modified
- Platforms may not cooperate without legal process
Best Practices:
- Document everything immediately with screenshots, recordings, and metadata
- Engage forensic experts to verify synthetic nature and trace origins
- Issue litigation holds to platforms quickly
- Consider private investigators for anonymous defendants
Jurisdiction and Venue#
Deepfakes cross borders instantly:
- Creators may be overseas
- Platforms are often in different states
- Harm occurs where the victim lives and where content is viewed
Strategic venue selection can significantly impact case outcomes.
Damages Evidence#
Build your damages case from day one:
- Document emotional distress (therapy records, personal journals)
- Track economic harm (lost opportunities, job impacts)
- Preserve evidence of reputational damage (comments, messages, lost relationships)
- Consider expert testimony on ongoing harm
Practical Considerations for Defendants#
Tool Providers and Platforms#
If you provide deepfake capabilities or host deepfake content:
Terms of Service: Clear prohibitions on harmful uses, with enforcement mechanisms
Detection and Response: Implement detection capabilities and responsive takedown processes
Disclosure: Watermarking and content authenticity features can limit liability
Insurance: Review coverage for emerging synthetic media liabilities
Enterprises#
If deepfakes target your organization or employees:
Authentication Protocols: Multi-factor verification for sensitive communications
Training: Employee awareness of deepfake risks and verification procedures
Incident Response: Plans for responding to deepfake attacks
Public Relations: Strategies for addressing deepfake disinformation
Looking Ahead#
Technical Developments#
Detection technology is improving but remains in an arms race with generation:
- Digital watermarking and content authenticity standards
- AI-powered deepfake detection
- Blockchain-based provenance tracking
These technologies may create legal duties to implement them.
Regulatory Developments#
Federal deepfake legislation remains stalled, but:
- The FTC is pursuing deepfake-enabled fraud under existing authority
- The FCC is addressing voice cloning scams
- State legislatures continue passing targeted laws
International Frameworks#
The EU AI Act addresses synthetic media:
- Mandatory labeling of AI-generated content
- Transparency requirements for deepfake creation tools
- Enhanced platform duties for synthetic media
US companies operating globally must comply with these requirements.
Conclusion: The Legal Framework Takes Shape#
Deepfake litigation has moved from novelty to established practice area. While legal theories continue to evolve and platform liability remains contested, the basic framework is clear:
- Creators of harmful deepfakes face civil and criminal liability
- Platforms can no longer rely on blanket Section 230 immunity
- Tool providers may face enablement and product liability theories
- Victims have multiple legal avenues for recovery
For those creating AI tools, deploying synthetic media capabilities, or hosting user content, the liability landscape demands attention. Detection, disclosure, and responsive takedown aren’t just best practices, they’re increasingly legal requirements.
For victims, the legal system offers imperfect but improving remedies. Success requires prompt action, careful evidence preservation, and strategic litigation choices.
The technology may be new, but the underlying legal principles, don’t harm people, don’t enable harm, respond when harm occurs, are timeless.
Related resources: AI Defamation, Voice Deepfake Liability, Section 230 and AI, Content Moderation.