Are AI-generated evidence and deepfakes covered by rules?

Australia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

Affidavits, witness statements and character references must be the maker's own words; Gen AI must not generate their content (NSW SC Gen 23, NCAT PD 7, PIC PD 13). Queensland SC PD 14 of 2024 requires expert reports in criminal proceedings to name the Gen AI program and annex complete prompt and output records.

• Practice Note SC Gen 23: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Practice Note SC GEN 25: The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users
• Practice Direction Number 14 of 2024: Expert evidence in criminal proceedings (other than sentences)
• NCAT Procedural Direction 7: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)
• Procedural Direction PIC13: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Guidelines for the use of generative AI
• Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 14 of 2024, cl (l) (official PDF)
• NCAT Procedural Direction 7, cl 12-15

International bodies

International bodies · verified 2026-09-04

Arbitration soft law only: SVAMC Guideline 5 asks parties to identify AI-generated material and its limits; Ciarb art. 6 covers admissibility, bias and source-data linkage; VIAC para 6 leaves admissibility and weight to the tribunal; the SCC Guide urges marking of AI-generated content. No international-court evidence rule found.

• SVAMC Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (First Edition)
• Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025)
• VIAC Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings
• SCC Guide to the use of artificial intelligence in cases administered under the SCC Rules
• Ciarb Guideline (PDF)

New Zealand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

No evidence rule. The judicial guidelines warn that generative AI can fabricate convincing images, audio and other media which parties could present as evidence, and list red flags for AI-produced submissions, but the Evidence Act 2006 is unamended for synthetic media.

• Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and Tribunals
• Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, be aware of GenAI use by others

Singapore

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

The court guide prohibits using generative AI to fabricate or alter evidence, and the MinLaw guide treats court documents as a high-risk use requiring human review. The Evidence Act 1893 has no AI-specific or deepfake authentication provision.

• Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024: Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users
• Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector
• Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)

United Arab Emirates

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

DIFC PGN 2/2023 requires witness statements to remain in the intended witness's own words under RDC 29.24, addressing AI-drafted testimony. No wider rule on AI-generated or deepfake evidence.

• DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)

United States

Americas · verified 2026-09-16

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would apply Rule 702 reliability standards to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert. Comment closed 16 Feb 2026; the Standing Committee declined to recommend adoption on 3–4 June 2026 and returned it for further study with deepfake issues.

• Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707: Machine-Generated Evidence
• US Courts — Standing Committee agenda book, June 2026 (PDF)

China

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific evidence rule; courts have sanctioned AI-fabricated evidence in Dawu County in November 2025 and Taizhou in December 2025. The Cyberspace Administration labelling measures in force from 1 September 2025 require explicit and metadata labels on AI-generated content, which aids authentication.

• Measures for Labelling AI-Generated and Synthesised Content
• Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court: counsel criticised for filing AI-fabricated precedents
• CAC labelling measures (official)

Poland

Europe · verified 2026-09-11

In the Wrocław case the court held that printouts of a party's ChatGPT queries submitted as exhibits are not evidence within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. No general rule on AI-generated or deepfake evidence.

• Gazeta Prawna — ChatGPT is not evidence

United Kingdom

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

No AI-specific evidence rule; deepfake and fabricated-document issues handled under existing authentication principles (Lodhia v Twelve Trees, 2026).

Afghanistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Albania

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Algeria

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Argentina

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Armenia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Austria

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Austrian evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Azerbaijan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

Azerbaijan criminalized some unconsented AI deepfakes and requires public labels for AI-generated photo, video and audio materials, but no court evidence admissibility rule was located.

• Caspian Legal Center — Azerbaijan criminalizes illegal AI use

Bahrain

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Bahraini evidence rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake material was located.

Bangladesh

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belarus

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belgium

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Bolivia

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Botswana

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Brazil

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence in civil or criminal proceedings found as of 4 September 2026.

Brunei

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Bulgaria

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cambodia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Cameroon

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Canada

Americas · verified 2026-09-16

No rule, guidance or reported case specifically on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 16 September 2026. Ontario's O. Reg. 384/24 addresses the authenticity of cited authorities, not evidence generally.

Chile

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Colombia

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 bars judges from using AI to assess evidence, which is a different question.

Costa Rica

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Côte d'Ivoire

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Croatia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cuba

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Cyprus

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Denmark

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Denmark applies free evaluation of evidence; no rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Dominican Republic

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule; the EU-assisted legislative review of June 2026 targets deepfakes as a criminal-law matter. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Ecuador

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule; the protocol bans AI translation or analysis of Kichwa and Shuar testimony, which is a procedural safeguard rather than an admissibility rule. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

• Protocol for the use of artificial intelligence in the Judicial Function (Ethics Committee)

Egypt

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The March 2026 governance framework guide places deepfakes in Tier 3 with transparency and watermarking expectations, but that is non-binding and is not an evidence rule.

• Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework (official)

El Salvador

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Estonia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Ethiopia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

European Union

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

Evidence rules are national or Member-State procedural law; the EU has no rule on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence. AI Act Art. 50 marking/watermarking duties may assist authentication indirectly but are not evidence rules.

France

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No French evidence rule or judicial guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Georgia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Germany

Europe · verified 2026-09-11

No German evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 11 September 2026; the free evaluation of evidence under § 286 ZPO applies.

Ghana

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Greece

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Guatemala

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Honduras

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Iceland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026; Iceland applies free evaluation of evidence.

India

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

No AI-specific or deepfake-specific evidence rule or guidance found as of 16 September 2026. The Bar Council of India circular of 17 July 2026 prohibits advocates from creating or circulating deepfake or synthetic courtroom content, but that is a conduct rule rather than an evidence rule.

• Bar Council of India circular on digital and social-media conduct and professional responsibility of advocates
• Verdictum on the BCI circular

Indonesia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Electronic evidence is governed by the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU 11/2008, amended by UU 19/2016 and UU 1/2024). There is no AI- or deepfake-specific authentication rule; the question is discussed only in academic literature.

• JDIH Komdigi — UU No. 1 Tahun 2024

Iran

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Iraq

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Ireland

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

No Irish rule on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence. PD HC 142 regulates the preparation of witness statements and expert reports but does not address admissibility of AI-generated material as evidence.

• Practice Direction HC 142: Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents

Israel

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or judicial guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026. A Haifa District Court refusal of a partly AI-produced summary of medical records is described in secondary commentary but was not verifiable against a docket.

• Calcalist commentary on AI in the justice system (1 Jan 2025)

Italy

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Jamaica

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Japan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific or deepfake-specific evidence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Jordan

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Kazakhstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

The AI Law requires marking of synthetic AI outputs, but no rule on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated evidence in Kazakh courts was located.

• Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII
• Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted

Kenya

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Kuwait

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kyrgyzstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Laos

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Latvia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Lebanon

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Lithuania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Luxembourg

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Luxembourg evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Macao

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Malaysia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific or deepfake evidence rule. Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 on computer-produced documents is unamended for AI. Caution: the Attorney General's Chambers statute portal is JavaScript-driven and the section text could not be opened, so the statutory position is inferred rather than read.

• Laws of Malaysia portal (AGC)

Malta

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mauritius

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Mexico

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule or guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Moldova

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mongolia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Montenegro

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Morocco

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The CNDP has invoked article 447-2 of the Penal Code to require labelling of AI-generated political content, but no evidence or authentication rule for AI material in litigation was located.

Mozambique

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Myanmar

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Namibia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Nepal

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Netherlands

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material. The Rechtspraak AI strategy expressly flags AI-generated process and evidence documents and equality of arms as questions still to be worked out.

• Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)

Nicaragua

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Nigeria

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific evidence rule. Computer-generated evidence is handled under s.84 Evidence Act 2011; commentary argues it is inadequate for generative-AI material, but no amendment or practice direction has been made.

North Macedonia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Norway

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Norway applies free evaluation of evidence [fri bevisbedømmelse]; no rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Oman

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Pakistan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Panama

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Paraguay

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Peru

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Portugal

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Puerto Rico

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Qatar

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Russia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

The 2026 AI law and reporting address synthetic-content labelling and AI-model governance, not authentication or admissibility of AI-generated evidence in court.

• Meduza — State Duma passes AI legislation

Rwanda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Saudi Arabia

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule on AI-generated or deepfake material. SDAIA's Deepfakes Guidelines address detection and developer obligations but are not rules of evidence and are not addressed to courts.

• SDAIA — Deepfakes Guidelines (official PDF)

Senegal

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Serbia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Slovenia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

South Africa

Africa · verified 2026-09-16

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 16 September 2026; authenticity is handled under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act and common-law principles.

South Korea

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific evidence rule. The judges' research-group guideline of February 2025 says existing civil and criminal procedure law governs AI-generated evidence and flags deepfake risks. AI Basic Act article 31 requires labelling of generative outputs indistinguishable from reality.

• Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary (Judicial AI Research Group)
• Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (Law No. 20676)
• Legal Times on the research group guideline

Spain

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Sri Lanka

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Sweden

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Sweden applies free evaluation of evidence [fri bevisprövning]; no rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.

Switzerland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Swiss evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.

Taiwan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific evidence rule; Judicial Weekly in May 2026 recommends adopting the approach of the draft United States Federal Rule of Evidence 707. AI Basic Act article 5 requires warnings on high-risk AI products.

• Artificial Intelligence Basic Act (Taiwan)
• Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (official PDF)

Tanzania

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Trinidad and Tobago

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Tunisia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Türkiye

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026. Bills penalising unlabelled AI-generated content have been tabled but none is in force.

Uganda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Ukraine

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uruguay

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uzbekistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Venezuela

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.

Zambia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Zimbabwe

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.

Czechia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Finland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Finland applies free evaluation of evidence [vapaa todistusharkinta, OK ch. 17]. No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence was located.

Hong Kong SAR

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not established. No Hong Kong evidence rule or judicial guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake material was located before the session search budget was exhausted.

Hungary

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Philippines

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No AI or deepfake-specific evidentiary rule; the 2001 Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) still govern. The Framework only flags judicial training on litigants' use of AI tools or outputs as evidence.

• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary
• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)

Romania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Slovakia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Thailand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.

Vietnam

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.