GDPR Compliance for AI-Generated Synthetic Media and Deepfakes
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve at a rapid pace, the technology’s application in producing hyper-realistic content—commonly referred to as synthetic media or deepfakes—has extended far beyond entertainment and parody. These AI-generated audio, image, and video manipulations are becoming increasingly sophisticated, prompting questions about authenticity, consent, and, critically, privacy. For organisations operating in the European Union or dealing with personal data of EU citizens, these questions must be considered through the lens of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
GDPR is one of the world’s most comprehensive and stringent data protection laws. It places significant responsibilities on data controllers and processors to safeguard individuals’ personal data. The rise of synthetic media presents unique challenges in how such content is generated, processed, and disseminated, particularly when that content mimics real people. These developments call for a nuanced understanding of how existing legal frameworks apply to emerging AI technologies.
What Constitutes Synthetic Media and Deepfakes?
Synthetic media refers broadly to content generated, altered, or enhanced by artificial intelligence, typically through methods such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) or large language models. Deepfakes are a subset of synthetic media, distinguished by the ability to convincingly manipulate audio or visual data to present situations or statements that never occurred.
While the technology was initially seen as a novelty or comedic tool, its potential to impersonate individuals—often without their consent—has raised significant ethical and legal implications. From political misinformation to AI-generated pornography, the misuse of this technology can result in reputational damage, emotional distress, and privacy breaches of a serious nature.
The Concept of Personal Data in a Digital Cloak
One of the GDPR’s core tenets is the protection of personal data. Personal data refers to any information that can identify an individual, which includes not only names and addresses but also images, voice recordings, biometric data, and likenesses. Consequently, when synthetic media replicates someone’s appearance or voice, it potentially constitutes processing of personal data under GDPR.
The complexity arises in determining whether the generated content genuinely relates to a real, identifiable individual. Suppose an AI model creates a face that is statistically derived from thousands of real faces but does not correspond to a specific individual. In that case, the content may not fall under GDPR, as it is not “about” a real person. However, when a synthetic video clearly depicts a living person—whether in jest, deception, or tribute—the law treats this as processing personal data.
The courts and data protection authorities in Europe have reaffirmed that identifiable likenesses and vocal imprints qualify as personal data. This interpretation means that anyone developing or distributing synthetic media featuring real individuals must be aware of their obligations under GDPR, particularly about legal bases for processing and data subject rights.
Legal Bases and the Importance of Consent
Under GDPR, processing personal data requires a lawful basis. For synthetic media and deepfakes, consent may often be the most appropriate legal ground. Consent must be explicit, informed, freely given, and capable of being withdrawn. The challenge is that much synthetic content is created without the subject’s knowledge, let alone their consent.
For example, using an actor’s voice in a fictional narrative may be lawful with their permission. However, synthesising their likeness in a compromising or misleading context without consent could constitute a serious violation of GDPR, as well as other legal frameworks like defamation laws or image rights in some jurisdictions.
Organisations creating AI-generated content must rigorously assess whether consent is necessary and, if so, ensure it is documented appropriately. Even if creators claim that material is satirical or artistic, GDPR does not provide an exemption for artistic expression unless weighed carefully against individual privacy rights.
Legitimate interest, another lawful basis, is also ill-suited for synthetic media involving identifiable individuals. The balancing test required under legitimate interest weighs the data controller’s policy aims against the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. Given the risks involved with misrepresentation or reputational harm, satisfying this test may be difficult.
Transparency and the Right to Be Informed
GDPR mandates that individuals must be informed about the collection and use of their personal data. Transparency is a fundamental pillar of accountability, and it is particularly important when the processing involves complex AI systems.
In the context of deepfakes, providing effective notice to individuals portrayed within such content is challenging. Many may never learn that their image or voice has been synthesised. Nonetheless, the duty to provide clear, accessible information about the purposes and legal basis of the processing still stands. Where synthetic content is disseminated publicly, creators or publishers may need to issue disclaimers or metadata disclosures that indicate the artificial nature of the media, along with contact information for data subjects to raise concerns.
Lack of transparency further elevates the risk of a breach, especially in media designed to deceive. Deepfakes purporting to convey genuine news or communication—such as fabricated political speeches—could become the subject of regulatory and possibly criminal scrutiny, depending on how closely they imitate real individuals.
Data Subject Rights in the Synthetic Landscape
GDPR empowers individuals with a suite of rights over their personal data. These include the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict processing, and object to processing, as well as the right not to be subject to solely automated decision-making.
One key right that intersects with synthetic media is the “right to erasure,” commonly known as the right to be forgotten. If an individual learns that their likeness is being improperly used in synthetic media, they have the right to request deletion of that content, provided no overriding legal obligations exist to retain it.
Similarly, the right to object could be exercised if the synthetic media causes distress, reputational harm, or infringes on personal freedoms. Data controllers must have mechanisms in place to address these requests promptly and efficiently. With the viral nature of deepfakes and synthetic content, addressing these rights in a timely manner becomes not just a legal necessity but also a reputational safeguard.
The complexity of fulfilling data subject requests increases when the content is widely distributed, hosted across multiple platforms, or published anonymously. Controllers must ensure they maintain records of processing activities and maintain sufficient oversight over their AI tools to identify and trace the origin of synthetic content.
The Role of Data Protection Impact Assessments
When deploying new technologies that pose high risks to individual rights and freedoms—including synthetic media generation—data controllers are required to carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). DPIAs are designed to identify, assess, and mitigate risks prior to the start of processing.
In the case of synthetic media, a DPIA should evaluate potential harms related to dignity, consent, reputation, and misrepresentation. It should also assess the effectiveness of safeguards such as content labelling, access controls, and user redress mechanisms. For platforms that allow the creation or sharing of AI-generated videos, a DPIA may reveal systemic risks, prompting the need for design changes or even policy limitations.
Furthermore, regulators may require prior consultation if the DPIA identifies a high risk that cannot be fully mitigated. For large platforms or high-profile users of synthetic media, this adds an additional layer of oversight that must be factored into development timelines and business models.
Building Ethical and Compliant Frameworks
Beyond legal compliance, organisations must consider the broader ethical implications of AI-generated content. The potential misuse of synthetic media to spread disinformation, commit fraud, or manipulate public opinion cannot be overlooked. While GDPR offers a vital legal framework, it is not a panacea for all issues associated with deepfakes.
Industry best practices are beginning to emerge, such as watermarking or cryptographically signing synthetic content to indicate its artificial origin. User verification measures and age restrictions can also help reduce the misuse of these tools, particularly where the content involves political figures, celebrities, or vulnerable individuals.
Collaboration between AI developers, policymakers, data protection experts, and civil society will be crucial in shaping a responsible ecosystem. Regulatory sandboxes and public consultations can create space for innovation while reinforcing privacy and human dignity at the system design level.
Enforcement Trends and Future Outlook
While GDPR has been in force since 2018, enforcement actions specifically related to synthetic media are still relatively limited. Yet, as the use of AI-generated content proliferates, it is only a matter of time before regulatory scrutiny intensifies. Complaints and investigations are already underway in several European jurisdictions where individuals have raised concerns about the misuse of synthetic likenesses.
Given the evolving nature of both the technology and the law, we may see guidance documents, codes of conduct, or even new legislative proposals aimed at tackling the unique aspects of AI-generated personal data. Eventually, the concept of AI transparency may require the inclusion of provenance data in all media files, essentially creating a traceable record of edits and origination—a kind of digital chain of custody.
For now, entities working in the frontier of synthetic media must remain vigilant. Establishing governance frameworks, appointing Data Protection Officers where appropriate, and keeping abreast of fragmented legal developments across EU member states will be foundational strategies for staying compliant.
Conclusion
Synthetic media powered by AI is reshaping the way we create and consume information. However, with great creative power comes an equally great responsibility to protect the dignity, identity, and autonomy of individuals. GDPR provides a robust legal architecture to ensure that the use of such technologies does not come at the expense of fundamental rights. Whether you are a developer, marketer, artist, or platform operator, understanding your obligations and embedding privacy-by-design into your processes is not just good practice—it is a legal imperative. The continued legitimacy and societal acceptance of synthetic media hinge on the ability to balance innovation with ethical governance and compliance.