03 9070 9810

Deepfake Privacy Lawyer Australia

AI-generated images and synthetic media depicting you without consent may be actionable under the new statutory tort.

Book a Confidential Assessment

Max file size: 20MB

Deepfakes and the New Privacy Tort

Since 10 June 2025, Australian law has provided a civil cause of action for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy covers two pathways, one of which is the misuse of personal information. That pathway may extend to AI-generated images, manipulated videos, and other synthetic media that depict an identifiable individual without consent. The Commonwealth tort fills a significant legislative gap in Queensland, where there is currently no civilian legislation covering optical or tracking surveillance.

This is a developing area of law. Judicial consideration of deepfake privacy claims under the statutory tort remains limited in Australia. But the statutory language is broad, and the misuse pathway covers information "relating to" an individual. Where a deepfake is recognisably you, there is a credible argument that creating or distributing it constitutes misuse of your personal information.

If someone has created or distributed a deepfake depicting you, strict time limits apply. You may have as little as 12 months from the date you became aware of the invasion to commence proceedings. If you are looking for a deepfake lawyer in Australia, a confidential initial assessment is the right place to start.

Initial Assessment for Synthetic Media

Confidential initial assessment: fixed fee $770. We will clarify your legal position.

How the Statutory Tort May Apply to Deepfakes

The law is new and untested in this area. Here is what we know and how the existing framework may apply.

Comparison of original and AI-manipulated images showing deepfake technology

Misuse of Personal Information

The second pathway of the statutory tort covers the collection, use, or disclosure of information relating to an individual where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A deepfake is derived from real images or recordings of a real person. The synthetic output is information "relating to" that individual. Where the deepfake is created or shared without consent, particularly if it is sexual, degrading, or places the person in a false context, the conduct is likely to satisfy the misuse limb. Truth is not a defence. Even if the deepfake is obviously fabricated, that does not prevent a claim.

Legal framework for digital privacy protection

The Seriousness Threshold

Not every use of AI-generated imagery will meet the threshold. The tort requires the invasion to be serious, and the court must weigh the plaintiff's privacy interest against any countervailing public interest. A single satirical image of a public figure may not clear the bar. But sexually explicit deepfakes, sustained harassment campaigns using synthetic media, or deepfakes created for extortion or coercion are likely to be treated as serious. The court will consider whether the defendant knew or ought to have known the invasion was likely to cause offence, distress, or harm to the plaintiff.

Urgent legal action to stop deepfake distribution

Urgent Injunctions to Stop Distribution

Deepfakes spread fast. Once synthetic media is circulating online, the harm compounds with every view and share. The statutory tort provides for injunctive relief, including urgent orders restraining further distribution. In appropriate cases, an application can be made on short notice or without notice to the respondent. Where the material is sexually explicit or intended to harass, the case for urgent restraint is strong. Removing the material at the source is often more valuable than any damages award.

What You Need to Know About Deepfake Privacy Claims in Australia

Who Can Be Sued

The statutory tort allows individuals to bring claims against any person, corporation, or government body. In a deepfake context, potential defendants include the person who created the synthetic media, any person who distributed or published it, the operator of a platform that hosted it (where the platform's conduct was intentional or reckless, not merely negligent), and any person who commissioned or procured its creation. The tort requires the defendant's conduct to have been intentional or reckless. Negligent hosting or accidental sharing is not sufficient.

Evidence and Preservation

Deepfake claims require careful evidence preservation. Synthetic media can be deleted, re-uploaded, or altered quickly. Before contacting the person responsible, you should take steps to capture and preserve evidence. This includes screenshots with visible URLs and timestamps, screen recordings of video content, archived versions of web pages, metadata from image files where accessible, and records of any communications from or about the person who created or shared the material. Do not rely on the content remaining available online. Platforms may remove it (which is helpful) but the evidentiary record must be secured first.

Overlap with Intimate Image Offences and Defamation

Deepfakes depicting a person in a sexual context may also engage Commonwealth criminal offences relating to non-consensual sharing of intimate images under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), as well as equivalent state offences. A criminal complaint and a civil claim under the statutory tort are not mutually exclusive. They serve different purposes: the criminal offence punishes the offender, while the civil claim compensates the victim and can restrain further distribution.

Where a deepfake places a person in a false and damaging context, there may also be a defamation claim. A fabricated video showing a person engaging in criminal conduct, for example, is both a misuse of personal information and a publication of defamatory matter. The two causes of action have different elements, different defences, and different damages frameworks. In some cases, it will be appropriate to pursue both. For more on the intersection of privacy and defamation, see our page on invasion of privacy vs defamation or visit defamationlawyer.au.

Remedies Available

Under the statutory tort, the court may award general damages for non-economic loss (capped at approximately $478,550 for non-economic loss, with no requirement to prove financial loss), injunctions restraining further creation or distribution of the material, orders for delivery up or destruction of the deepfake, and exemplary damages in exceptional cases where the defendant's conduct was particularly egregious. The court must not award aggravated damages. An apology by a defendant does not constitute an admission of fault or liability under clause 13 of Schedule 2, but the court may take it into account when determining damages. This creates scope for negotiated outcomes that include both removal and a formal acknowledgement.

The OAIC Complaint Pathway

A complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) is a free, lawyer-free alternative for resolving privacy disputes. However, the OAIC pathway has significant limitations regarding resolution speed and the inability to award punitive damages. Furthermore, the OAIC generally only has jurisdiction over entities subject to the Australian Privacy Principles (APP entities). For serious deepfake invasions, the statutory tort often represents a more effective avenue for relief.

Overseas Jurisprudence

Judicial consideration of deepfake claims under the statutory tort remains limited in Australia. However, the UK, New Zealand, and Canada have each developed privacy tort jurisprudence that Australian courts are likely to consider as persuasive authority. The English courts in particular have addressed misuse of private information in the context of manipulated and fabricated imagery. While these decisions are not binding, they provide a framework for how the seriousness threshold and reasonable expectation of privacy may be assessed in this context.

The Journalist Exemption Does Not Protect Most Deepfake Creators

The journalist exemption under Part 3 of Schedule 2 is narrow. It applies only to professional journalists subject to a code of practice, and their employers and assistants, in relation to the collection, preparation, or publication of journalistic material. Social media users, influencers, content creators, and anonymous online accounts do not qualify. The vast majority of deepfake creators and distributors will not be able to rely on this exemption.

Disclaimer: The content of this page provides general information only and does not constitute specific legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice regarding your particular circumstances.

Fixed-Fee Entry Points for Deepfake Privacy Claims

Initial assessment: $770. Pre-action demand letter: $990. Clear advice on your position before you commit to further costs.

Why Deepfake Claims Require Prompt Action

The nature of synthetic media creates urgency that other privacy claims may not share.

Rapid Viral Spread

Deepfakes can be shared, downloaded, and re-uploaded across platforms in hours. The longer you wait, the harder removal becomes and the greater the harm.

Strict Time Limits

You have one year from when you became aware of the invasion, or three years from when it occurred, whichever is earlier. Extensions are available only in limited circumstances.

No Proof of Damage Required

The statutory tort is actionable per se. You do not need to prove financial loss or quantifiable harm. The invasion itself is the wrong.

Injunctions Can Restrain Ongoing Harm

A court order restraining further distribution may be more valuable than any damages award. Urgent applications are available where the circumstances require it.

Truth Is Not a Defence

It does not matter whether the deepfake is obviously fabricated. The defendant cannot argue that no one believed it was real. The misuse of your information is the actionable wrong.

Evidence Degrades Quickly

Content is taken down, accounts are deleted, metadata is lost. Early legal engagement means evidence is preserved properly and available if proceedings are required.

Frequently Asked Questions: Deepfake Privacy Claims

The statutory tort covers the misuse of information relating to an individual. A deepfake is derived from and depicts a real, identifiable person. There is a strong argument that creating or distributing such material constitutes misuse of personal information under Schedule 2. However, judicial consideration of this issue in an Australian court remains limited. The statutory language is broad and the legislative intent was to cover new and emerging forms of privacy invasion. Overseas courts, particularly in the UK, have addressed analogous claims involving manipulated imagery under the tort of misuse of private information. Australian courts are likely to consider that jurisprudence.

Yes, in principle. There are procedural mechanisms for identifying anonymous defendants, including preliminary discovery orders and orders directed to platforms and internet service providers to disclose account holder information. Identifying the creator is often one of the first practical steps. We can advise on the available options in a confidential initial assessment.

The statutory tort applies to conduct that has a relevant connection to Australia. If you are an Australian resident and the material depicts you, there is a basis for jurisdiction regardless of where the platform is based. Enforcement against overseas parties can be more complex, but injunctive relief directed at Australian-based intermediaries or the respondent personally may still be effective. Each case turns on its facts.

It can be. If the deepfake conveys a defamatory imputation (for example, that you engaged in criminal conduct or sexual acts you did not in fact engage in), a defamation claim may lie alongside the privacy claim. The two torts have different elements and defences. A defamation claim requires the material to damage your reputation in the eyes of ordinary members of the community. A privacy claim requires a serious invasion of your privacy. In many deepfake scenarios, both will be present. We practise in both areas. See invasion of privacy vs defamation for more detail.

The court may award general damages for non-economic loss (capped at approximately $478,550) and exemplary damages in exceptional cases. The court must not award aggravated damages. No proof of financial loss is required. The court may also grant injunctions, orders for destruction of the material, and other non-monetary remedies. In practice, a negotiated outcome that includes removal, an undertaking not to repeat the conduct, and agreed damages may be preferable to protracted litigation. See our page on compensation and damages claims.

The eSafety Commissioner has powers to issue removal notices for certain categories of online content, including non-consensual intimate images. A complaint to eSafety and a civil claim under the statutory tort are not mutually exclusive. The eSafety pathway focuses on removal. The statutory tort provides damages, injunctions, and a broader range of remedies. For serious invasions, pursuing both avenues concurrently is often appropriate.

Yes. The statutory tort is not limited to intimate or sexual content. Any serious misuse of personal information is potentially actionable. A deepfake placing you in a false political, criminal, professional, or social context may meet the seriousness threshold if the court is satisfied that the invasion was intentional or reckless and that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

For a fixed fee of $770 (inclusive of GST), we review the facts of your situation, advise whether the statutory tort is likely to apply, identify the available remedies, and recommend next steps. The assessment is confidential. If you proceed to a pre-action demand letter, that is a further fixed fee of $990. You are not committed to further costs at any stage. See confidential initial assessments.

The Limitation Period May Be as Short as 12 Months

If you have become aware of a deepfake depicting you, seek legal advice promptly. A confidential initial assessment will clarify your position.

Call