Emerging Offenses Involving Ai-Generated Disinformation Campaigns
What are AI‑Generated Disinformation Offences?
These are wrongful acts where actors use generative artificial intelligence (text, audio, video, deepfakes) to create, alter or amplify false or misleading content, often to influence public opinion, elections, markets or individuals. Key features include:
Use of AI to produce synthetic media (voice clones, deepfake video, fake articles).
Deployment at scale via social media networks, bot farms, fake websites.
Intent or effect of deception: manipulating public perception, election outcomes, reputation, or financial decisions.
Legal issues: defamation, election law violations, fraud, cybercrime, platform liability, data protection, national security.
Legal & Regulatory Considerations
Some of the main legal angles:
Election law / campaign regulation: Synthetic media used to mislead voters or impersonate candidates.
Defamation & reputation: Deepfakes of individuals causing non‑consensual exposure or false claims.
Fraud & financial mis‑information: AI‑generated false statements used to mislead markets or investors.
Platform liability / intermediary responsibility: Are platforms required to remove or label AI‑generated content?
Statutory offences: Many jurisdictions are amending laws (e.g., synthetic media labelling, communications offences) to cover AI‑generated content.
Admissibility and attribution: How to trace AI‑generated content to an actor, prove intent, link to harm.
Detailed Case Examples
Here are five (actually six) notable examples illustrating different dimensions of AI‑generated disinformation offences.
Case 1: AI Deepfake Harassment – India (Delhi High Court, July 2025)
Facts: A prominent activist (Kamya Buch) in India was targeted by a large‑scale campaign of morphed images, AI‑generated visuals, pornographic deepfakes and defamatory texts disseminated across social media. The case was brought against anonymous individuals, porn websites and major platforms (Meta Platforms, X Corp, Google LLC) plus the Union of India. en.ddg.fr
Legal Response: The Court ordered:
Interim injunctions restraining dissemination.
Platforms to remove specified URLs promptly.
Google to de‑index the materials.
ISP/Union to block access to the infringing webpages.
Platforms to identify dissemination accounts.
Confidentiality protections for the victim.
Significance: This is among the first Indian decisions explicitly addressing AI‑generated disinformation/deepfake content in a harassment context. It shows the court is willing to order proactive takedowns and platform cooperation.
Legal Issues: Victim’s dignity and reputation; intermediary liability; tracing anonymous actors; balancing free speech vs. harm.
Case 2: State‑Sponsored AI Disinformation Campaigns – Russia/Ukraine & Beyond
Facts: During the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, there has been extensive use of AI‑generated imagery, videos and audio deepfakes. For example: fake videos alleging statements by Ukrainian leaders; fake adverts targeting children encouraging denunciation of critics; AI‑generated children in military uniform.
Legal/Regulatory Action: These are more in the domain of national security and intelligence rather than conventional “court cases”. They highlight how state‑actors may be prosecuted (or sanctioned) for interfering via AI‑generated disinformation.
Significance: Shows how AI disinformation is not just private fraud but can be weaponised in geopolitical contexts.
Legal Issues: Attribution of campaigns to state actors; cross‑border jurisdiction; freedom of expression vs. national security; evidentiary challenges in proving synthetic origins.
Case 3: U.S. State Law on Synthetic Media – Wisconsin A.B. 664 (2024)
Facts: The Wisconsin legislation defines “synthetic media” (audio/video content produced in whole or part by generative AI) and requires certain political‑campaign affiliated entities to include a disclaimer when using synthetic media. Failure to do so results in fine ($1,000 per violation). Voting Rights Lab
Legal Response: Rather than a specific “case”, this is regulatory. Nevertheless, it signals how jurisdictions are creating statutory offences/penalties for undisclosed AI‑generated content in election context.
Significance: Marks shift from “no law” to “legal labelling requirement” for AI‑generated content in political campaigns.
Legal Issues: Enforcement (who monitors disclosures), scope (only campaign‑affiliated entities), free speech concerns (compelled labelling), technical proof of AI origin.
Case 4: AI‑Generated Videos in Bangladesh Election Context (2025)
Facts: In Bangladesh, ahead of national elections, there was a significant surge in AI‑generated synthetic videos used in political campaigns. For example: second quarter 2025 saw 19% of all misinformation being synthetic, including AI‑generated campaign videos. The Business Standard
Legal/Regulatory Response: While specific prosecutions may not yet be public, the fact of widespread synthetic media in elections is raising concern.
Significance: Highlights how AI‑generated disinformation is manifesting in newer jurisdictions, not just developed economies.
Legal Issues: Regulatory capacity (forensics), jurisdictional enforcement, lack of existing statutory offences in some countries, campaign finance law adaptation.
Case 5: Malaysian Communications & Multimedia Act – Amendment for AI Disinformation (2025)
Facts: In Malaysia, the communications law (Section 233 of the Communications & Multimedia Act 1998) regulates false, menacing or offensive communications. The 2025 amendment (Communications & Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025) increased penalties (fine up to MYR 500,000, imprisonment up to 2 years, daily fine for continuing offence) to address online communications misconduct. LinkedIn
Legal Response: The amendment is aimed at online offences generally (not only AI‑generated disinformation) but is clearly part of the legal response to synthetic content/misinformation.
Significance: Demonstrates legislative efforts in South East Asia to update laws for digital and AI‑driven communications offences.
Legal Issues: Vagueness of “false or offensive communications”, free speech risks, proving AI origin of content, attribution.
Case 6: U.S. Campaign Robocall Deepfake Case (New Hampshire, 2025)
Facts: A political consultant, Steven Kramer, sent AI‑generated robocalls mimicking Joe Biden’s voice before the 2024 primary in New Hampshire, suggesting voters should wait until November to vote. Prosecutors claimed it amounted to voter suppression and impersonation. The jury acquitted him of 11 felony and 11 misdemeanor charges. AP News
Legal Response: Although acquitted criminally, the case illustrates how existing election, impersonation or voter‑fraud laws are being tested by AI‑generated content. A separate fine from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is still pending.
Significance: Shows how AI‑generated voice deepfakes are entering the domain of electoral offences.
Legal Issues: Scope of impersonation laws, burden of proving intent, technical attribution of voice clone to person, interplay between criminal law and regulatory fines.
Synthesis of Lessons and Emerging Themes
From the above cases, several themes emerge:
AI‑generated disinformation is crossing from theory to practice: deepfakes, synthetic videos, AI articles are already being used in electoral contexts and harassment campaigns.
Legal systems are adapting, but often after harm is done: Many jurisdictions are still drafting laws to address synthetic media labelling, platform obligations, election legislation, etc.
Proving attribution and intent is a major hurdle: To prosecute, you often need to show who generated the AI content, how, for what purpose, and link to victims/harm.
Platform intermediaries matter: Courts are ordering platforms to remove content, block URLs, or disclose user information (see the Delhi case).
Balance with free speech and political expression: Measures like mandated labelling (Wisconsin) or broad communications offence amendments raise concerns about over‑reach and chilling effects.
International and cross‑jurisdictional nature: Many campaigns involve state‑actors, overseas websites, bot networks — making enforcement complex.
Preventive vs remedial approaches: Some regulations focus on requiring disclosures (labelling), others on takedown/removal, and others on criminalising generation or dissemination.
Technical: synthetic media detection and forensic readiness: To enforce these laws effectively, forensic tools to detect AI‐generated content and log origin are critical.
Gaps and Emerging Risks
The legal liability of AI system developers (models that generate disinformation) is still under‑explored.
The line between human vs AI assistance is now blurred — e.g., human organising disinformation but using AI tools to generate text or visuals.
Mass automation of disinformation (bot networks + AI content generation) creates scale that outstrips manual review and historic legal responses.
Financial markets and commercial fraud: While election contexts are prominent, AI‑generated disinformation could increasingly target investors, causing share price manipulation, false corporate disclosures etc.
Deep‑fakes of individuals (voice, video) for extortion, stock‑manipulation, social engineering — a growing frontier.
Conclusion
AI‑generated disinformation campaigns represent a new frontier of offence: they blend technology, communications, psychology, politics and law. The cases above show how courts and regulators are starting to confront these harms (harassment deepfakes in India, election robocalls in the U.S., legislative amendments in Malaysia/Wisconsin, state‑sponsored campaigns by Russia).
Going forward, legal frameworks will likely evolve in three directions:
Mandated transparency and labelling of synthetic media.
Takedown and platform‑liability obligations for fast removal of identified disinformation.
Criminal sanctions or administrative penalties for generation/dissemination when tied to election interference, impersonation, fraud, or significant public harm.
RELATED Blog
comments