Forget Public Figures, Deepfakes Pose High Risks for Corporate World
For companies, deepfakes can trigger not only a public relations nightmare, but could be the cause of litigation, two Littler Mendelson attorneys warn.
July 17, 2019 at 01:00 PM
3 minute read
Public figures aren't the only targets of deepfakes. Indeed, any company can suffer reputational and litigation damages from the use of deepfake content.
A deepfake refers to a realistic but fake video or audio recording made from leveraging artificial intelligence tools and previously recorded visual or audio content. In the past year, deepfakes have garnered attention from legislators as a technique to channel false information. For instance, a video of U.S. Sen. Nancy Pelosi doctored to make her appear to be slurring her words was widely circulated on social media platforms in May, amplifying some fears that as a U.S. presidential election nears, deepfakes will be leveraged to stir misinformation.
While deepfakes aimed at public figures have received attention, CEOs and heads of human resources can also be targeted by the technology, warned Littler Mendelson robotics, AI and automation practice group co-chair Natalie Pierce. Pierce, along with three other firm colleagues authored a report on the implications of Deepfakes in the workplace.
Though a significant amount of audio and video is needed to create a realistic deepfake, the report highlighted that voicemails can also present disgruntled employees enough material to create a high-quality deepfakes.
“It [deepfakes] could do a lot of harm if an employer isn't knowledgeable that this technology is out there and if they believe what they see,” Pierce said. “That poses a big potential risk also in the same way that emails or text messages are doctored.”
A successful deepfake could have dire effects on a company's reputation, stock and possibly be used as evidence in litigation, added Littler Mendelson chief data analytics officer Aaron Crews.
“As this technology democratizes and it's pretty easy to acquire, the ability for it to penetrate in companies of any size is very high,” Crews said. He added, “I promise you in the not-too-distant future that someone will have a video and it's entirely fabricated and it's attached to a complaint.”
Pierce agreed and said to prevent a deepfake from successfully infiltrating a company, employers should “question things that may not be right when they have significant [impact]. At least having access to resources to detecting deepfakes is critical.”
Those resources include analyzing GPS and time stamps on communications and utilizing cryptographic key signing to validate messages while the industry waits for a deepfakes-specific verification tool to be developed, according to the firm's report.
If seeing something recorded was ever deemed a gold standard, it has lost that luster with deepfakes, Crews said. In-person interviews with the parties and forensic tests are now more important when investigating remarks or actions made in a recording.
“Questioning and verifying will become even more important because I think there is such a tendency to look at a piece of video and if something shocking is shown you can jump to conclusions,” Pierce said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250