Courts on AI / evidence
AI-generated evidence and deepfakes in court
Every ruling we can find, in any jurisdiction, in which AI-generated, AI-altered or AI-"enhanced" material was offered as evidence, a party attacked genuine-looking evidence as a deepfake, or a court weighed an acknowledged AI output — coded by evidence type, who offered it, the challenge and the ruling, with the court's finding in the court's words. Beside it, the rules: what proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 says, where it stands, and what states and other systems have done. No alleged media is hosted or linked.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0US decisions quoted (public domain); other judgments ≤25 words and linkedJSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face- 60
- rulings, one page each
- 13
- countries
- 6
- excluded or given no weight
- 3
- deepfake defences to genuine evidence
- 10
- rules and proposals tracked
Status · 2026-05-07
Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 — Not advanced
The Advisory Committee published proposed Rule 707 in August 2025 to apply Rule 702 reliability standards when machine-generated evidence substitutes for expert testimony. The May 2026 agenda reflects continued study and controversy rather than advancement to the next rulemaking stage.
“The Advisory Committee has not come to a formal decision on this issue.” — source
Next: No Evidence Rule 707 appears in the August 2026 preliminary draft; monitor future Evidence Rules agenda books.
What the record showsas of 2026-09-07
Counts and shares computed from the dataset at build time. They describe what the record contains; they do not rank, evaluate or advise.
- Of 60 rulings, 22 no weight given, 16 admitted, 8 other, 6 excluded, 5 not adjudicated, 2 sanction, 1 authentication ordered.
- What was at issue: acknowledged ai output tendered in 32; alleged deepfake in 15; ai-generated material submitted in 5; alleged voice clone in 3; deepfake defence to genuine evidence in 3; ai-enhanced material in 1; other in 1.
- In 18 matters a party said evidence was, or might be, a deepfake; in 15 of them the court admitted the evidence, gave the allegation no weight or did not reach it, and in 3 it excluded the material or required authentication or expert evidence.
- 13 countries: United States 23 · Canada 14 · Australia 5 · Netherlands 3 · India 3 · France 2.
- Rules most often cited: Canada Evidence Act s.31.1 (8), People v. Patterson (2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (2).
- 10 instruments tracked: 4 in force, 4 published, 1 under study, 1 not advanced. Canada Evidence Act section 31.1; California Judicial Council Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80; Louisiana Act 250 / House Bill 178 (2025) and others are in force.
Rules, proposals and guidance
Each instrument's status is quoted from the body that owns it and re-checked after every committee meeting or legislative action.
| Instrument | Body | Type | Status | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada Evidence Act section 31.1 | Electronic-document authentication rule | rule | In force | 2026-09-07 |
| Draft Federal Rule of Evidence 901(c) | Deepfake authentication burden-shifting draft | proposed rule | Under study | 2026-05-07 |
| Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 | Machine-generated evidence reliability gatekeeping | proposed rule | Not advanced | 2026-05-07 |
| Federal Judicial Center deepfake survey | Survey of federal judges about deepfake evidence | survey | Published | 2026-03-25 |
| NCSC/TRI bench card: unacknowledged AI-generated evidence | Bench card for alleged deepfake evidence | bench card | Published | 2026-01 |
| NCSC/TRI bench card: acknowledged AI-generated evidence | Bench card for disclosed AI exhibits | bench card | Published | 2026-01 |
| UK Judiciary AI Guidance (October 2025), deepfakes | Judicial guidance on fake AI material | guidance | Published | 2025-10 |
| California Judicial Council Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 | Generative AI guardrails for California court-related work | guidance | In force | 2025-09-01 |
| Louisiana Act 250 / House Bill 178 (2025) | Louisiana AI/falsified evidence civil procedure amendments | statute | In force | 2025-08-01 |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 section 63 | Electronic-record admissibility rule | rule | In force | 2024-07-01 |
Electronic-document authentication rule
Deepfake authentication burden-shifting draft
Judicial guidance on fake AI material
Electronic-record admissibility ruleDecisions
Newest first. “Deepfake defence” means a party challenged genuine-looking evidence as synthetic; “AI-enhanced” means software altered real material before it was offered.
| Decision | Where | What was at issue | Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| DunGud Pty Ltd v Peachbulk Pty Ltd · [2026] ATMO 154 | Australia Trade Marks Office | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Perth Day Hospital v. Fitness Cartel · [2026] WASC 314 | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Acknowledged AI output tendered · image · offered by defendant | No weight given |
| Bryan v. City of Philadelphia | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by defendant | Not adjudicated |
| R v Flett · 2026 ABKB 296 | Court of King's Bench of Alberta | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| N° 25/04051 | Tribunal judiciaire de Clermont-Ferrand | Acknowledged AI output tendered · expert-report · offered by plaintiff | Not adjudicated |
| Côté et Placements J.F. Desgagné inc. · 2026 QCTAT 1311 · sensitive matter | Tribunal administratif du travail | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | Excluded |
| Burnley v. Valentin | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia | Alleged voice clone · audio · offered by defendant | Admitted |
| Exagres v. Gres de Aragon | European Union Intellectual Property Office | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Matter of M.S. (M.H.) · 2026 NY Slip Op 00825 · sensitive matter | New York Court of Appeals | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by petitioner | Excluded |
| n° 25/01677 | Cour d'appel de Rouen | Acknowledged AI output tendered · expert-report · offered by plaintiff | No weight given |
| Head v. Doe · 2026 BCSC 184 | Supreme Court of British Columbia | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by defendant | Admitted |
| State v. Amyda · sensitive matter | Iowa Court of Appeals | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| United States v. Hernandez | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas | AI-generated material submitted · mixed · offered by prosecution | Sanction |
| Shirran v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 4004 | British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · expert-report · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Tribunale di Modena, 29 dicembre 2025 | Tribunale di Modena | Alleged deepfake · screenshot · offered by plaintiff | Admitted |
| R. v. Medow · 2025 ONCJ 661 | Ontario Court of Justice | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| Biton v. National Insurance Institute · sensitive matter | Jerusalem Regional Labor Court | Acknowledged AI output tendered · expert-report · offered by plaintiff | Other |
| Kirkham v. City of Bellingham | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by defendant | Not adjudicated |
| Demissie v. Ford | U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by defendant | Not adjudicated |
| Agyeman v. Hosseinzadmoghadasi · 2025 BCCRT 1278 | British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · document · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield | Superior Court of California, Alameda County | AI-generated material submitted · mixed · offered by plaintiff | Sanction |
| VP Evans Ors v. HMRC · [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC) | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) | Acknowledged AI output tendered · document · offered by court | Other |
| Kipping v. Electrical Workers Registration Board | Court of Appeal of New Zealand | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Brookbrand Wholesale Ltd. v. Hemp Hemp Horray Holdings Ltd | British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by defendant | No weight given |
| P v. CP | Tribunale di Brescia | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by defendant | No weight given |
| Marshall v. Regal Waters Holdings Pty Ltd · [2025] QCAT 289 | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Hunt v. Morissette | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by plaintiff | No weight given |
| R. v. Cheng · 2025 ONCJ 252 | Ontario Court of Justice | Alleged deepfake · mixed · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| State v. Horcasitas · sensitive matter | Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County | AI-generated material submitted · victim-statement · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| Metcalf v Hector · [2025] VCAT 367 | Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by respondent | No weight given |
| Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York | Acknowledged AI output tendered · expert-report · offered by plaintiff | Admitted |
| R. v. Vitellaro · 2025 ONCJ 200 | Ontario Court of Justice | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| Bahia v. ICBC · 2025 BCCRT 453 · sensitive matter | British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Ross v. United States | District of Columbia Court of Appeals | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by court | Other |
| Aleto Beheer BV v. Venlo Municipality · ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:335 | Council of State of the Netherlands | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| L.H.S. v. Clal Insurance Co. · sensitive matter | Magistrate Court of Israel | AI-generated material submitted · document · offered by defendant | Excluded |
| In re D.S. · sensitive matter | Superior Court of Pennsylvania | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| XXXX v. Wallonie Bruxelles · ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2024:ARR.261.320 | Council of State of Belgium | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Plaintiff v. Minister of Asylum · ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:18167 · sensitive matter | District Court of The Hague | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Paynter v. Canada Border Services Agency · 2024 FPSLREB 116 | Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by respondent | Admitted |
| X v. Y · ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:4474 | District Court of Gelderland | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by court | Other |
| Matter of Gabriel H. · 2024 NY Slip Op 03588 · sensitive matter | New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department | Alleged deepfake · video · offered by petitioner | Admitted |
| Yang v. Gibbs · 2024 BCCRT 613 | British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by applicant | No weight given |
| Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by court | Other |
| Hussain v. State of Manipur · sensitive matter | High Court of Manipur | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by court | Other |
| Azubuike c. R. · 2024 QCCS 1654 | Superior Court of Québec | Alleged voice clone · audio · offered by prosecution | Excluded |
| State v. Puloka | King County Superior Court, Washington | AI-enhanced material · video · offered by defence | Excluded |
| J.G. v. New York City Department of Education · sensitive matter | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by plaintiff | No weight given |
| R v MD · 2024 ABKB 104 · sensitive matter | Court of King's Bench of Alberta | Alleged voice clone · audio · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| DPP v. Khan | Supreme Court of Victoria | AI-generated material submitted · witness-statement · offered by defence | No weight given |
| Commonwealth v. Spone · sensitive matter | Superior Court of Pennsylvania | Alleged deepfake · mixed · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
| Pegnatori v. Pure Sports Technology | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by defendant | No weight given |
| Louboutin v. The Shoe Boutique | Delhi High Court | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by plaintiff | No weight given |
| Santander v. Carlin · [2023] NICh 5 | High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by defendant | No weight given |
| Valenti v. Dfinity USA Research LLC | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California | Deepfake defence to genuine evidence · video · offered by plaintiff | Excluded |
| Freedman Normand Friedland LLP v. Cyrulnik | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | Deepfake defence to genuine evidence · expert-report · offered by plaintiff | Not adjudicated |
| Huang v. Tesla, Inc. | Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County | Deepfake defence to genuine evidence · video · offered by defendant | Authentication ordered |
| Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab · sensitive matter | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Acknowledged AI output tendered · chat-output · offered by court | Other |
| Salvador Espitia Chavez v. Salud Total · sensitive matter | Constitutional Court of Colombia | Acknowledged AI output tendered · document · offered by court | Other |
| United States v. Reffitt · 602 F. Supp. 3d 85 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | Other · video · offered by prosecution | Admitted |
Australia Trade Marks Office
Tribunal judiciaire de Clermont-Ferrand
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Tribunale di Modena
Jerusalem Regional Labor Court
Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Council of State of the Netherlands
Council of State of Belgium
Constitutional Court of ColombiaHow this is made
Leads: Damien Charlotin's CC0 deepfakes and AI-evidence databases, the Federal Judicial Center's 2026 survey of judges, CourtListener discovery searches and news. US decisions are read from the court's own copy or the public RECAP archive and quoted (public domain). Canadian, Australian and UK decisions are read by a person one at a time on CanLII, AustLII or Find Case Law and linked, not reproduced — those services' terms exclude bulk or machine processing. Where a court anonymised a party we do the same; where a matter is sensitive the page carries only the ruling. Rule status is taken from uscourts.gov committee materials and legislatures. Repository and schema.