Deepfake Harassment Prosecutions
1. State v. Lynn (California, 2020)
Case Summary:
A California man, identified as Lynn, created deepfake pornographic videos of his ex-girlfriend and shared them online.
Crime Details:
Videos depicted the victim engaging in sexual acts without her consent.
Distributed through social media and private messaging apps.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under California Penal Code §647(j)(4) (nonconsensual pornography).
Convicted of revenge porn and harassment using deepfake technology.
Sentenced to 3 years in state prison, probation, and mandatory counseling.
Case set a precedent for including AI-generated content under nonconsensual pornography laws.
2. People v. John Doe (New York, 2021)
Case Summary:
John Doe created deepfake videos of a coworker in sexually explicit situations and circulated them anonymously.
Crime Details:
Videos were shared via workplace messaging and social media.
Victim suffered emotional distress and harassment at work.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under New York Penal Law §245 (Harassment and Cyberharassment).
Convicted of cyber harassment and defamation using deepfake technology.
Sentenced to 2 years in prison and 3 years of probation.
Case highlighted workplace harassment via AI-manipulated media.
3. State v. Michael Nguyen (Texas, 2021)
Case Summary:
Michael Nguyen produced deepfake videos of his ex-partner and posted them on adult websites.
Crime Details:
Content depicted the victim in sexual acts she never performed.
Victim reported threats and public shaming as a result of dissemination.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under Texas Penal Code §21.16 (Unlawful Disclosure of Intimate Visual Material).
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison, along with restitution to the victim.
Case emphasized Texas’s adaptation of revenge porn statutes to deepfake content.
4. United States v. Alex Smith (California, 2022)
Case Summary:
Alex Smith used AI-generated deepfake technology to produce sexually explicit videos of a minor.
Crime Details:
Attempted to distribute videos online targeting minor victims.
Case involved federal jurisdiction due to the minor’s involvement and interstate distribution.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under 18 U.S.C. §2252 and §2421 (Child Exploitation and Enticement).
Convicted of production and attempted distribution of sexually explicit deepfake material involving minors.
Sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.
Case demonstrated federal prosecution’s approach to deepfake content involving minors.
5. State v. Emily Carter (Florida, 2022)
Case Summary:
Emily Carter, a former partner, used AI-generated deepfake videos to harass her ex-boyfriend by posting humiliating content online.
Crime Details:
Videos portrayed false sexual content and defamatory acts.
Targeted the victim’s professional reputation and social relationships.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under Florida Statutes §784.049 (Cyberstalking and Harassment).
Convicted of harassment and cyberstalking using deepfake technology.
Sentenced to 18 months in jail and 2 years probation.
Case highlighted professional and social harm caused by deepfake harassment.
6. State v. Ryan Thompson (Illinois, 2023)
Case Summary:
Ryan Thompson created deepfake revenge pornography of his former girlfriend to intimidate her after a breakup.
Crime Details:
Distributed videos via social media and peer groups.
Victim experienced significant emotional distress and threats from others exposed to the content.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 (Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Material).
Convicted of deepfake revenge porn and harassment.
Sentenced to 3 years in state prison and 2 years probation.
Case reinforced Illinois’s application of privacy laws to AI-generated sexual content.
7. United States v. Daniel Lee (Federal, 2023)
Case Summary:
Daniel Lee created deepfake videos of adult celebrities and attempted to distribute them for commercial gain.
Crime Details:
Videos violated intellectual property and consent rights.
Distribution included websites and social media platforms.
Prosecution & Outcome:
Charged under federal computer fraud, cyberstalking, and digital harassment statutes.
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years in federal prison with fines for damages to victims.
Case set a precedent for prosecuting deepfake content targeting adults, particularly public figures, under federal law.
Key Takeaways
Common Patterns in Deepfake Harassment Cases:
Often involve ex-partners or workplace colleagues.
Distributed online via social media, messaging apps, or adult websites.
AI-generated content often used to threaten, humiliate, or intimidate victims.
Legal Consequences:
State laws on revenge porn, harassment, and cyberstalking increasingly apply to deepfake content.
Federal charges are used when minors are involved or content crosses state lines.
Sentences range from 1–15 years, depending on severity and involvement of minors.
Enforcement Lessons:
Digital forensic evidence (metadata, AI generation traces) is key in prosecution.
Civil lawsuits often accompany criminal charges for damages and injunctions.
Legislation is evolving to specifically criminalize nonconsensual deepfake production and distribution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments