Deepfake Legal Fights Escalate Globally
Legal challenges against platforms over deepfakes and AI-generated scams are intensifying worldwide. In Australia, billionaire Andrew Forrest is suing Meta, alleging it enabled scam ads and destroyed evidence. Meanwhile, India's Gujarat High Court is hearing a case seeking action against AI deepfakes targeting constitutional authorities, signaling a new era of legal liability for tech vendors.
The public interest litigation in India's Gujarat High Court was filed by advocate Vikas Vijay Nair, who argues that the spread of deepfakes targeting public figures erodes institutional credibility. The petition seeks to compel both central and state governments, along with platforms like Meta, Google, and X, to strengthen and enforce the Information Technology Act of 2000. Specifically, the PIL calls for mandatory watermarking of AI-generated content and the creation of standard operating procedures for police to handle deepfake complaints. Globally, the legal landscape is a patchwork of approaches. The European Union's AI Act, expected to be fully applicable in mid-2026, mandates clear labeling for all AI-generated content, including deepfakes, to prevent deception. The Act focuses on transparency and regulating the AI systems themselves, rather than content, and will be supported by a voluntary Code of Practice to guide implementation. In the United States, there is no single federal law governing deepfakes, leading to varied state-level legislation. As of February 2026, 46 states have enacted laws targeting AI-generated media, often focusing on non-consensual intimate imagery or election-related deception. Proposed federal laws like the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act aim to create more uniform rules, including requiring platforms to remove harmful content within a set timeframe or lose liability protections under Section 230. China has implemented regulations centered on traceability and control, requiring labels and encrypted watermarks on all deepfake content and outlawing software that can remove them. This approach differs from the EU's rights-based framework and the U.S.'s harm-reduction focus, instead prioritizing social stability and government oversight. Andrew Forrest's legal actions against Meta highlight the jurisdictional challenges. While his private criminal prosecution in Australia was dropped due to insufficient evidence, a civil lawsuit in California is proceeding. A U.S. judge rejected Meta's attempt to dismiss the case under Section 230, suggesting the platform's own ad tools may have contributed to the fraudulent content, a ruling that could have significant implications for platform liability.
