How have AI‑generated videos and deepfakes been used to spread false sanctions claims during 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
AI‑generated videos and deepfakes in 2025 have become tools both to fabricate allegations and to cast doubt on genuine evidence, altering how false sanctions claims can be made, amplified and contested; courts, regulators and platforms are scrambling to adapt as the “liar’s dividend” and outright synthetic impersonations complicate enforcement and public perception [1] [2]. Reporting shows clear instances of deepfakes weaponizing reputations and operations — from doctored expert testimony in court to viral impersonations on social platforms — while legal and policy responses, including new laws and calls for reforms, raced to catch up [2] [3] [4].
1. How deepfakes make false sanctions claims plausible
Synthetic media enable two complementary pathways for false sanctions narratives: first, by producing entirely fabricated footage that appears to show a company or individual admitting to sanction‑able conduct, and second, by creating convincing impersonations of officials or executives whose “statements” are then presented as evidence of illicit deals; analysts warn this kind of reputational weaponization — false depictions of individuals engaging in harmful conduct — is precisely how deepfakes are used in defamation and fraud scenarios [5] [6].
2. Real examples that illustrate the threat, but not a tidy catalogue of sanctions scams
Courts have already seen synthetic testimony used as evidence: an Alameda County judge in 2025 threw out a civil suit and recommended sanctions after finding a videotaped witness was a deepfake, signaling how fabricated video can enter formal legal processes [2]. Outside courts, ultrarealistic AI videos have been used to depict soldiers and public figures saying and doing things they never did, showing how easily falsified clips can spread and be weaponized in geopolitical narratives — the same mechanics could be repurposed to allege sanction breaches even when direct reporting of such specific scams is limited in the sources reviewed [7] [8].
3. Amplification: platforms, virality and the speed problem
Platforms accelerate false sanctions claims: AI videos circulate across YouTube, TikTok, X and Facebook and can be removed only after significant spread, though some platforms are proactively removing violative synthetic content at scale [7]. The European Parliament and industry reporting warn of millions of synthetic pieces circulating, and the engagement‑optimized nature of social algorithms means damaging allegations — including fabricated sanction violations — can reach policy and market audiences before verification [8] [9].
4. The “liar’s dividend” and the reverse weaponization of authenticity
A dangerous dynamic in 2025 is the “liar’s dividend”: actors facing real evidence of wrongdoing may claim that authentic video is a deepfake to avoid accountability, raising the burden of proof for investigators and courts and complicating sanctions enforcement [1] [10]. Legal experts argue this shifts costs onto victims and regulators, forcing expensive forensics and eroding trust in visual proof [10] [4].
5. Responses: law, policy and forensic limits
Governments and courts have begun to respond: new legislation targets non‑consensual impersonation and the EU AI Act mandates transparency for AI‑generated content, while U.S. enforcement actions around schemes linked to sanctioned actors (for example broad actions targeting North Korean remote IT worker schemes) show that sanctions tools remain active even as synthetic media complicate attribution [3] [11]. Yet forensic limits persist — analysts can detect artifacts but cannot always prove how files were created or placed, driving calls for procedural and legal reforms in evidence handling [10] [4].
6. What reporting does — and does not — show about false sanctions claims in 2025
The record compiled by major outlets and legal commentators documents numerous cases where deepfakes harmed reputation, misled courts or sought to influence geopolitics, and it connects deepfakes to broader fraud and impersonation schemes that intersect with sanctions enforcement; however, the reviewed sources do not provide a comprehensive, independently verified list of instances in 2025 where AI videos were used specifically to create false, widely propagated sanctions claims that directly changed enforcement outcomes, so the extent of that particular tactic in practice remains incompletely documented in these reports [2] [7] [11] [8].