Deepfakes: what can you do about them?

A politician dancing to your favourite song, or a deceased actor who, thanks to digital technology, still manages to grace the silver screen. Deepfakes can be harmless and even commercially interesting.

But deepfakes have a downside. Think of pornographic deepfakes, such as the ‘undress’ feature of X’s Grok app, which was banned by the preliminary relief judge at the end of March 2026. Politicians making statements in videos that they never actually made. Or misleading adverts in which familiar faces endorse products they have never recommended.

The problem is that creating deepfakes is now accessible to everyone, the quality is improving at lightning speed, and dissemination via social media is a matter of seconds.

What can victims of a deepfake do about this? Dutch law already offers various options, although some consider these insufficient, which is why a new bill is on the table. Nevertheless, enforcement remains the biggest stumbling block. In this article, I discuss the existing legal remedies, the draft bill and the practical challenges of enforcement, focusing on the options available to individuals featured in a deepfake.

What exactly is a deepfake?

The European AI Regulation provides a definition: “AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video material that bears a resemblance to existing persons, objects, places, entities or events, and which a person might wrongly perceive as authentic or truthful.”

Important to note: deepfakes are not limited to images and videos; they also include voice recordings. Furthermore, they are not limited to deepfakes of people, but also include, for example, animals and natural phenomena.

What legal options are already available?

In the Netherlands, we already have various tools to tackle deepfakes, although these can only be used once the deepfake has appeared online. I will briefly explain them below.

Right to one’s own image

The right to one’s own image stems from the right to privacy. If a deepfake of you is created without your consent, you can take action against it. The right to one’s own image protects against the unauthorised use of your likeness – an image in which you are recognisable – and applies to both living and deceased persons.

However, there is an important limitation: the right to one’s own image is not an absolute right. Your interests must always be balanced against the freedom of expression of the person who created the deepfake. Public figures such as politicians and celebrities must tolerate more than an unknown person, although in the case of most harmful deepfakes, the balance will tip in favour of the person who has been deepfaked.

Another limitation is that the right to one’s own image does not protect your voice.

Right to privacy (GDPR)

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes further than the right to one’s own image. The GDPR protects only living individuals, but it does cover the use of your voice, as voice recordings are also personal data.

In principle, your consent is required for the processing of personal data. If this is lacking, the creator of the deepfake must provide another justification. This will often involve a balancing of interests with freedom of expression. In addition, the GDPR imposes further requirements, such as that personal data may only be used for the purpose for which it was originally collected and that it must be accurate. Most harmful deepfakes will therefore quickly find themselves in breach of the GDPR.

The GDPR is particularly strict when it comes to sexual deepfakes: biometric data and data relating to a person’s sexual behaviour may not, in principle, be processed. Sexual deepfakes therefore quickly find themselves in breach of the GDPR.

Tort

In addition to the above legal principles, the concept of tort provides a civil law remedy for tackling deepfakes. Anyone who commits a tort against another person for which they are liable is obliged to compensate the other person for the damage suffered as a result. A tort occurs where there is an infringement of a right, an act in breach of a legal duty – such as the right to one’s own image or the GDPR – or an act contrary to what is considered proper in society. Under certain circumstances, this may apply to the creation and dissemination of deepfakes, for example if this damages your honour or reputation.

Criminal law

Depending on the nature of the deepfake, criminal law may also be invoked. Consider the following criminal offences:

• Defamation and slander
• Revenge porn and the unlawful production of sexual images
• Fraud and blackmail
• The production and distribution of child pornography

A bill: a new neighbouring right for deepfakes

Despite all these existing options, some believe that current law does not go far enough. A bill has therefore been drafted to introduce a new right.

The proposal grants every natural person a so-called neighbouring right: an absolute right, akin to copyright, which allows you to prohibit deepfakes of yourself or, if you so wish, to authorise them in return for payment via a licence. Unlike the right to one’s own image, you would not then have to undergo a balancing of interests; the right is absolute. It would apply to both living and deceased persons and would expire seventy years after the death of the person concerned. The right is personal: it cannot be transferred, but it can be licensed.

Not everyone is enthusiastic. Critics argue that the bill is incompatible with the GDPR, which does not permit national legislation to cover the same ground as that already regulated by the GDPR. Furthermore, it is argued that current law already offers sufficient options and that the real problem lies not in the legal basis, but in enforcement – and this bill does nothing to change that.

The biggest problem: enforcement

Even if you are legally in the right, the reality on the ground is stubborn.

The first challenge is this: who created and posted the deepfake? This is often unclear. You will probably first have to approach the platform, the website host or the domain registrar to request the poster’s details. At the same time, you can ask them to take the deepfake offline. In practice, these intermediaries are not quick to comply without a court order, even though they are generally obliged to do so in the case of a harmful deepfake. This quickly leads to an initial summary proceeding, followed by proceedings on the merits to make the removal permanent.

Once you have established the identity of the uploader, you may also need to pursue the creator. If the creator fails to comply with a formal notice, this will quickly result in at least two further sets of proceedings. Although summary proceedings can swiftly secure an injunction against the dissemination of the deepfake, they only provide a provisional measure. A full trial is still required to secure a permanent ban and any compensation.

Add to this the fact that all parties involved should preferably be based in the Netherlands. If the creator or uploader is based abroad, a favourable judgement can sometimes be difficult to enforce.

In short: even if the law is on your side, the path to securing a ban and the costs involved can be considerable.

What can you do now?

Are you a victim of a deepfake, or do you want to know how to protect your rights? The law already offers concrete options. However, the path to achieving this requires a well-considered approach. Please feel free to get in touch to discuss which steps would be most effective in your situation.