Deepfake Case — Navigating a Digital Privacy Investigation

Investigators traced the client through the deepfake content distributor who was arrested, and law enforcement seized transaction logs and chat activity.

Although the client viewed the material twice, no distribution, modification, or solicitation activity was detected. 

Establishing this narrow scope early in the investigation was essential to preventing escalation into dissemination-based charges.

And, a core element in many digital-privacy investigations is whether the accused understood the nature of the content. 

The client initially believed the materials were purely synthetic and did not appreciate the legal distinction between parody-style deepfakes and non-consensual explicit imagery. 

Demonstrating this misunderstanding, supported by message history and behavioral patterns helped mitigate perceived criminal intent.

We trained the client to avoid unnecessary explanations and to speak only to conduct actually supported by evidence. 

The goal was not to deny possession but to contextualize it as an isolated, non-distributive event. 

This approach reduced investigative suspicion and prevented misinterpretation of the client’s online activity.

And, our team reviewed the results of the seized mobile device, ensuring the forensic extractions were complete and free of ambiguities. 

The analysis confirmed no re-sharing, saving, exporting, or production of deepfake files—only two paid downloads. 

This technical clarity was a decisive factor in persuading prosecutors to consider a non-criminal outcome.

The client completed multiple proactive steps:

• Psychological counseling related to digital-media boundaries
• A written reflection addressing harm and privacy invasion concerns
• Participation in community-based educational programs
• Submission of positive employment documents and character materials

This package demonstrated accountability and helped shift the prosecution’s view of the client from a potential digital-privacy offender to a first-time, low-risk individual.

When presenting the deepfake case, we stressed three points:

• The conduct was isolated and limited to passive possession.
• There was no evidence of sharing, producing, or intending to profit from the images.
• The client’s extensive rehabilitation efforts confirmed minimal risk of future violations.

These arguments aligned with New York’s discretionary standards for declining prosecution in low-level digital-privacy cases involving non-dissemination.