Why Deepfake Technology Forces Courts to Rethink The Reliability of Evidence
Newsletter Issue 86: Deepfake technology destabilises courtroom trust by weakening confidence in recorded evidence and exposing structural limits of traditional evidentiary assessment.
Courts can no longer credibly claim that evidentiary reliability is a settled problem managed through existing rules and judicial instinct. Deepfake technology has exposed how fragile long held assumptions about recorded truth really are, not because judges are inattentive, but because the legal system was never designed to verify authenticity in an environment where fabrication is easy, convincing, and legally consequential.
Newsletter Issue 86
Deepfakes Are Not Just a Tech Problem; They Are a Justice Problem!
Courts have always depended on evidence as the anchor of decision making. That dependence now sits under sustained pressure. This is not an abstract debate about future technology. It is a present reality that demands careful attention from anyone who cares about the rule of law, accountability, and fairness.
Video and audio that appear authentic can now be generated or altered in ways that defeat casual inspection and sometimes expert review. Courts have traditionally relied on a combination of common sense, procedural safeguards, and expert testimony to decide whether evidence is reliable. Deepfake technology places pressure on all three at the same time.
This newsletter looks at why this matters, how existing evidentiary principles are being strained, and why courts are being forced to reconsider assumptions that once felt stable.
What Deepfakes Really Do to Evidence
Deepfake technology undermines a basic assumption that has long guided judicial reasoning, which is that recorded audio and video tend to reflect real events unless there is a concrete reason to doubt them.
Courts never treated recordings as infallible, but there was an underlying confidence that fabrication required effort, expertise, and resources that were not widely available.
That confidence no longer holds. Software tools now allow realistic manipulation of facial movements, voice patterns, timing, and context using datasets that can be gathered from public sources.
Social media platforms, conference recordings, podcasts, and court filings themselves provide the raw material. The result is not simply the existence of fake content, but uncertainty about authentic content.
A recording can be genuine and still be challenged with credibility. A recording can be fake and still persuade. Courts must now consider not only whether evidence appears real, but whether appearance itself has lost probative value. This affects admissibility decisions, weight given to evidence, and the allocation of burdens between parties.
Traditional Evidentiary Safeguards Under Pressure
Legal systems rely on a layered approach to evidentiary reliability. Authentication rules require parties to show that evidence is what it claims to be. Cross examination allows weaknesses to be exposed. Expert witnesses provide technical insight, while judges and juries assess credibility in context.
Deepfakes complicate each layer. Authentication becomes harder when visual similarity and voice matching are no longer meaningful indicators of origin. Cross examination struggles when the witness did not create the content and cannot explain the manipulation. Expert evidence becomes contested when experts disagree or rely on tools that themselves produce probabilistic conclusions.
Interested in learning more the future of courts in the EU? Check out this newsletter:
The law has always accepted that evidence can be forged. What is different now is scale and plausibility. Fabrication is easier, faster, and more convincing than before. This changes how much confidence can be placed in surface level indicators of truth.
Courts in several jurisdictions have already acknowledged this difficulty. Judicial opinions have begun to reference the risk of manipulated media, even where no deepfake allegation is proven. This shows that the issue is not limited to cases involving advanced forgery, but extends to general evidentiary assessment.
Criminal Justice and the Risk of Error
Criminal proceedings illustrate the stakes most clearly. Video evidence often carries strong persuasive force. Jurors tend to trust what they can see and hear. Prosecutors rely on recordings to establish presence, intent, or conduct. Defendants rely on recordings to show innocence, coercion, or misconduct by authorities.
Deepfakes introduce two risks at once. False inculpatory evidence may be introduced. Genuine exculpatory evidence may be dismissed as fake. Both risks undermine fairness.
Judicial systems have limited tolerance for error in criminal cases, yet procedural rules are slow to adapt. Judges must decide whether to admit recordings while knowing that their own ability to evaluate authenticity is constrained.
Excluding all contested recordings is not realistic. Admitting all recordings without deeper scrutiny is equally problematic.
Civil Litigation and Commercial Disputes
Civil courts are not insulated from these issues. Employment disputes may rely on recorded conversations. Commercial litigation may involve video meetings, voice messages, or recorded negotiations. Defamation claims increasingly involve manipulated content circulated online.
The evidentiary standard in civil cases is lower than in criminal cases, which increases exposure. A manipulated recording may tip the balance of probabilities even if doubts exist. This raises concerns about strategic misuse of deepfake material in high value disputes.
Judges must assess whether existing disclosure rules, expert evidence standards, and sanctions for misconduct are sufficient deterrents. There is growing recognition that technical manipulation can occur without leaving obvious traces, making post hoc remedies less effective.
Evidentiary Reliability as an Institutional Problem
Deepfakes force courts to confront evidentiary reliability as an institutional issue rather than a case specific anomaly. The problem is not limited to one dishonest party or one flawed expert. It is systemic.
Courts operate under time constraints, resource limits, and procedural fairness requirements. Judges cannot become forensic technologists. Jurors cannot be trained to detect synthetic media. Reliance on expert witnesses introduces cost and inequality, as well resourced parties can commission more persuasive testimony.
Several structural tensions become visible.
Authentication standards assume stable technical benchmarks.
Expert disagreement undermines judicial confidence.
Procedural equality is strained by asymmetric access to technical expertise.
These tensions are not resolved through better education alone. They require reconsideration of how evidentiary trust is constructed.
Regulatory and Policy Responses
Outside the courtroom, lawmakers and regulators are attempting to address deepfakes through criminalisation, labelling obligations, and platform duties. These measures indirectly affect evidentiary reliability by shaping how content is created, distributed, and preserved.
AI may be criminally liable, but only in some niche context. Read our deep-dive editorial on this topic:
European Union policy discussions under the Digital Services Act and Artificial Intelligence Act acknowledge the evidentiary risks posed by synthetic media.
United States federal agencies have issued guidance on synthetic media risks, particularly in election integrity and fraud contexts, which has downstream relevance for courts assessing authenticity.
Regulation alone does not solve the courtroom problem, but it influences the ecosystem in which evidence arises. Courts must operate within that ecosystem rather than outside it.
Why Courts Cannot Rely on Intuition Anymore
Judicial intuition has always played a role in assessing evidence. Judges develop instincts through experience. Deepfakes undermine that reliance because realism is no longer a reliable cue.
A video that looks implausible may be authentic, and a video that looks ordinary may be entirely fabricated. This inversion destabilises confidence in visual reasoning. Courts must acknowledge that intuition is no longer sufficient when dealing with contested digital media.
This recognition is already visible in judicial training materials and appellate commentary. It does not imply judicial failure, but it reflects technological change that outpaces inherited methods of evaluation.
Evidentiary Reliability as a Public Trust Issue
Courts do not operate in isolation. Public confidence in judicial outcomes depends on the belief that evidence can be assessed fairly. If members of the public believe that any recording can be dismissed as fake or accepted uncritically, trust erodes.
Deepfakes create a credibility gap in that genuine victims may struggle to prove harm. Wrongdoers may exploit doubt, and courts become arbiters of technical disputes that the public cannot easily follow.
This is not an abstract concern since media reporting already reflects scepticism about video evidence. That scepticism spills into legal proceedings, influencing juror attitudes and public reaction to verdicts.
Where the Conversation Is Heading
Courts are beginning to recognise that evidentiary reliability in the age of deepfakes cannot rest on assumptions formed in earlier technological contexts. Procedural rules, judicial reasoning, and evidentiary doctrines are being tested in real cases rather than academic debate.
The conversation is moving toward deeper scrutiny of provenance, stronger emphasis on corroboration, and greater caution in assigning persuasive weight to recordings standing alone.
This topic deserves sustained attention from lawyers, technologists, judges, and the public. Discussion, critique, and shared understanding matter because evidentiary reliability is not merely technical but it is foundational to justice.
How do you see courts addressing this problem in practice?
Thanks for the detailed and interesting analysis. I think that AI manipulation of documents, audio and video presents a big problem in and out of the courtroom. I understand that there is already some AI technology designed to detect AI manipulation and I assume that such technology will get better as there is certainly a demand for it. Courts will probably continue using forensic expert testimony, and the experts will be using specialized detection AI. The problem will not be solved, but it can be managed. It's the usual cat and mouse game of tech and counter-tech.
Thanks for sharing this article. Do you see this problem emerging more in criminal cases, civil disputes?