Ai Identity Spoofing Prosecutions
Key Legal Issues & Framework
Before going into cases, these are the legal concepts relevant for prosecuting or litigating AI identity spoofing / impersonation / deepfake misuse:
Fraud / False Personation: Using another’s identity to deceive someone, generally for gain, or to cause harm. Many states have laws against false personation.
Identity Theft / Aggravated Identity Theft: Federal statutes (e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1028, 1028A) criminalize using someone’s personal identifying information in connection with another federal crime (“predicate offense”).
Defamation / Libel / Slander: If a deepfake impersonates someone and makes them appear to say or do things they didn’t, there may be a civil case for defamation. But criminal defamation is rare in U.S. federal law; more often civil.
Harassment / Stalking Laws: Sometimes impersonation with deepfake is part of stalking, harassment, or cyber‑harassment, which many states criminalize.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) or other cybercrime laws may be implicated when hacking, obtaining data, or using computers to distribute deepfakes.
New or Proposed Legislation: Some states are enacting criminal statutes specifically aimed at deepfakes or synthetic media that impersonate or mislead (especially in political contexts or in non‑consensual sexual content).
Because AI deepfake identity spoofing is relatively new, many prosecutions are in early stages, or the conduct is prosecuted under existing laws (fraud, identity theft, harassment) rather than a statute explicitly naming “deepfake.”
Notable Cases & Examples
Here are more than four or five cases / real incidents and legal developments that are relevant, either as prosecutions, court rulings, or possible precedents:
Case / Incident A: Dubin v. United States (2023) – Aggravated Identity Theft
Facts: Dubin involved the question whether a person “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense, specifically when the use is central to what makes the conduct criminal. The case was not about AI impersonation/deepfake per se, but it concerns identity misuse. Wikipedia
Legal Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court clarified that under § 1028A (aggravated identity theft), to convict someone, the use of another’s means of identification must be “at the crux” of the underlying predicate offense. Merely mentioning someone’s name is not sufficient. Wikipedia
Relevance: If deepfake impersonation is used in the commission of a predicate fraud, blackmail, or some other crime, then Dubin may help define how identity theft statutes apply in that context.
Example B: Dazhon Darien Deepfake Audio Case (Maryland)
Facts: Darien, a former high school athletics director, used AI to create a deepfake audio recording impersonating a high school principal. The recording falsely included racist and anti‑Semitic statements. The audio was widely shared and caused public harm. AP News
Charges / Prosecution: He pleaded via an Alford plea to a misdemeanor count related to “disrupting school operations.” The original charges included more serious ones (stalking, witness retaliation, etc.). The court sentenced him to four months in jail. AP News
Significance: This is one of the clearer examples where AI impersonation / identity spoofing (deepfake audio impersonation of a public official) led to criminal consequences. It shows how existing state criminal law (misdemeanors, disturbing operations) can be applied to new kinds of harms enabled by AI.
Example C: Stalking & AI Chatbot Impersonation (Massachusetts)
Facts: James Florence used AI chatbots to impersonate a university professor. He created chatbots using platforms that mimicked the professor’s identity (voice or communication style), and used them to lure strangers to the professor’s home, along with other harassment. The Guardian
Legal Proceedings: Florence pleaded guilty to cyberstalking and related harassment charges. The Guardian
Significance: Again, while not “deepfake video impersonation” necessarily, this shows face/voice‑impersonation via AI used for harassment / stalking. Legal tags: cyberstalking, harassment, possibly identity impersonation. Helps illustrate how existing statutes can adapt.
Example D: Minnesota Deepfake Law & Platform Litigation
Facts: Minnesota passed a law criminalizing the distribution of AI‑generated deepfake media interfering with elections (or depicting false impersonation without disclosure, etc.). The social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter) sued to block the law, arguing First Amendment concerns. Reuters
Legal Status: This is not exactly a case of prosecution yet, but shows the legal conflict around new statutes specifically intending to criminalize deepfake impersonation in certain contexts. Reuters
Significance: Shows how new laws are being tested in court. The balance between identity spoofing harms and free speech rights is a key emerging issue.
Example E: Lawyer Using AI to Fabricate Case Citations
Facts: An attorney used ChatGPT (or similar generative AI) to generate fake legal citations (cases that did not exist) and submitted them in a legal brief. Judge fined the lawyer, criticizing the misuse of AI for misinformation. Not exactly identity spoofing, but relevant to misrepresenting identity / authenticity via AI. The Times of India
Legal Outcome: The filings were rejected, and the judge warned that lawyers must verify AI outputs. Fines were imposed. The Times of India
Significance: Illustrates “spoofing” or misrepresenting something real (cases, identity of source) via AI. Demonstrates courts taking steps to police falsification / misrepresentation via AI.
Gaps, Uncertainties, and Likely Court Development
Very few federal precedents explicitly address AI deepfake identity spoofing. Most are state or local.
Many existing prosecutions use older laws (harassment, stalking, fraud, misrepresentation) rather than statutes specifically about AI/deepfakes.
Legal questions include whether “identity” (voice, face, likeness) is protected in specific contexts, whether impersonation / deepfake falls under existing definitions of fraud or impersonation or whether new laws are needed.
Constitutional issues: First Amendment rights (speech, parody), free expression, etc., when does deepfake impersonation cross into unprotected territory.
Statutory developments: many states considering or passing laws specifically criminalizing nonconsensual synthetic media, deepfake impersonation, election‑related deepfakes, etc.
Proposed / Emerging Laws
Minnesota’s deepfake law (see above) is one example of state law targeting deepfakes in the election context. Reuters
TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal / proposed) seeks to deal with removal of non‑consensual intimate deepfake content. Wikipedia
Summary Table
| Example / Case | Type of AI Identity Spoofing | Legal Issues / Charges | Outcome or Status | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dubin v. U.S. (2023) | Use of someone’s identity in commission of crime (statutory identity theft) | How “use” is interpreted under identity theft law | Held that identity use must be "at the crux" | Helps define identity misuse |
| Darien (Maryland) Deepfake Audio | Impersonated principal via AI fake audio | Disruption, false impersonation of public official | 4 months jail (misdemeanor) | Real‑world example of audio deepfake prosecution |
| Florence (Massachusetts) Chatbot/Stalking | AI impersonation via chatbots to harass / lure | Cyberstalking, impersonation, harassment | Plea guilty | Shows misuse of identity via AI in harassment contexts |
| Minnesota Deepfake Law vs X | Law‑making and constitutional challenge | Impersonation in election context, political speech | Litigation ongoing | Tension between regulating identity spoofing deepfakes and free expression |
| Lawyer using AI citation fabrications | Misrepresentation / false identity of sources | Ethical misconduct, misrepresentation to court | Fined / reprimanded | Illustrates court oversight of AI misuse |
Cases That I Could Not Find (As of Yet)
There’s no major published U.S. Supreme Court case yet explicitly holding a person criminally liable solely for creating a deepfake video impersonating someone (without additional fraud or harm).
Many cases are too new, or still in investigative or prosecutorial discretion stages, or are dealt with in civil suits (for defamation, privacy, etc.).
Conclusion
AI identity spoofing prosecutions are beginning to emerge, but case law is still in its infancy. So far, existing prosecutions have used traditional legal tools (identity theft statutes, impersonation / fraud laws, harassment or stalking laws) rather than statutes specifically designed for AI deepfakes. Key demonstrated cases include:
Audio deepfake impersonation leading to school disruption (Darien case)
AI‑chatbot impersonation used in stalking/harassment (Florence case)
Lawsuits and legal challenges about deepfake laws (Minnesota)
RELATED Blog
0 comments