What legal actions have public figures taken against deepfake ad scammers?

1. Courtroom pushback: celebrities obtaining injunctions and takedowns

High-profile entertainers in India have led an early wave of judicial remedies by suing to stop unauthorized AI-generated likenesses and securing court orders to block synthetic videos, audio and images that mimicked their appearance and voice, a form of direct injunctive relief against deepfake ad content and impersonation ^[1]. Legal filings in those cases targeted both the creators and the distribution of synthetic content, and courts in New Delhi and Mumbai have recognized the risk to reputation and privacy from commercialized synthetic impersonations, including nonconsensual obscene deepfakes ^[1]. Reuters and other legal summaries document that public figures are among the most frequent targets because abundant source material makes convincingly fake endorsements or scam ads easier to produce ^[5].

2. Private lawsuits against platforms and apps: the rise of right-of-publicity claims

Public figures in the U.S. have also initiated civil suits or proposed class actions against app makers and platforms that enable face‑swapping or voice cloning, alleging violations of state publicity rights and related torts—one recent example is a proposed class complaint against a “deepfake” app that a TV personality says enabled unauthorized face swaps and thereby ran afoul of California’s right-of-publicity law ^[2]. Legal commentators note that right-of-publicity, defamation, false-light, and intentional-infliction claims are the principal tools available to celebrities, although success often hinges on whether the use is commercial, whether the deepfake is “transformative,” and whether the creator can be identified for service of process ^[3].

3. Platform pressure and allied legal actors: campaigns to remove scam ads

Beyond private suits, public figures and advocacy groups have pressured platforms and state officials to act after scam ads used recognizable business and political personas to sell fake investments or government benefits; investigations by watchdog groups revealed deepfake-style scam ads using figures like Warren Buffett, Trump, and others, prompting coordinated calls from state attorneys general and platform takedowns after large ad spends ^[6]. Those actions highlight a hybrid route: when individual creators are anonymous, the only feasible remedy may be against platforms and advertisers—or through regulatory enforcement—because many deepfakes travel via paid ad channels that platforms control ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Legislative and regulatory complements to litigation

Public figures have not relied on courts alone; legislative responses are increasingly part of the playbook. States have adopted or proposed laws focused on nonconsensual intimate imagery, election-related deepfakes, and commercial uses of likenesses, and jurisdictions like New York have enacted rules requiring AI-generated ads to be labeled—an approach that shifts some responsibility onto advertisers and platforms and creates civil penalties for mislabeling ^{[7] [4]}. Legal analysts caution that statutes vary widely and that enforcement regimes often leave gaps that litigation seeks to fill, while defendants may assert First Amendment defenses such as parody or transformative use ^[3].

5. Limits, defenses, and the road ahead

Litigation is constrained by practical and doctrinal limits: anonymous uploaders, the cost of discovery, and evolving defenses—including transformative‑use arguments and free-speech claims—mean many suits will test novel questions about identity, commercialization, and harm ^[3]. Reporting to date documents notable victories and lawsuits but does not provide a comprehensive inventory of every public‑figure legal action worldwide; continuing cases and new statutes will determine whether injunctions, damages, platform liability, or regulatory labeling become the dominant remedy for deepfake ad scams ^{[1] [2] [4]}.