Deepfake Ads Are Turning Influencer Trust Into a New Liability

Unauthorized deepfake ads are creating a new risk for influencers whose businesses depend on audiences believing that an endorsement is real. A recent Guardian report documented altered images of lifestyle creator Emily Schuman appearing in advertisements for companies she said she had never agreed to promote. The examples included health, beauty and testing products, categories in which a false endorsement can carry consequences beyond an embarrassing image.

Schuman’s experience shows why the problem is difficult to contain. The altered material was built from images she had previously shared, and followers contacted her because the promotions did not fit her usual work. By the time a creator learns that a fake campaign is circulating, an audience may already have seen the name, product and invented association together.

A woman uses a smartphone to take a photograph. Photo: Suhyeon Choi / CC0 1.0. Display size adjusted.

The reported ads included an altered selfie promoting a telehealth company and other generated images connected to a cosmetics brand and a blood-testing service. The companies did not all respond in the same way. Superpower told the Guardian that it had been targeted by a scammer and had reported the content, while other named businesses did not answer the publication’s questions. That distinction matters because an advertisement appearing online does not by itself prove who commissioned it.

Creators face two overlapping harms. The first is commercial: a fake sponsorship can conflict with a legitimate contract or make future partners question the creator’s judgment. The second is personal: followers may believe the creator has recommended a medical, financial or beauty product without proper disclosure. Correcting the record requires the influencer to spend time and credibility on a transaction that never existed.

A separate dispute involving creator Molly Tranchin illustrates the legal uncertainty around AI-altered campaign material. Federal court records show that Tranchin filed a complaint against underwear company EBY in June. Her allegations included unauthorized alteration and use of content. Those were allegations, not findings, and the company disputed the claims.

The federal case ended without a decision on the underlying issues. A later legal analysis reported that Tranchin voluntarily dismissed it after a jurisdiction challenge and indicated an intention to refile in a court with authority to hear the dispute. That procedural outcome is important: it neither validated nor rejected the substantive allegations, and it did not establish a broad rule governing every creator contract.

Platform policies already prohibit forms of deceptive impersonation and misleading content, but enforcement is the practical test. Automated ad systems can move quickly across accounts, and bad actors can disappear or return under a new identity. Reporting tools help remove individual posts, yet they may not restore the trust lost when followers first encounter a convincing fake endorsement.

For influencers, the emerging best practice is documentation. Creators and managers can keep an organized record of approved campaigns, original files and publication dates, and clearly tell audiences where legitimate partnerships are disclosed. Contracts should address whether a brand may use generative tools to modify a creator’s face, voice, body or words, rather than assuming older language about editing answers that question.

Brands also need stronger verification around the people purchasing and placing ads in their name. A company can suffer reputational damage even when a scammer created the content without authorization. Agencies, affiliates and outside media buyers should be able to show where creative assets came from and who approved them. A low-cost ad placement is not a bargain if its source cannot be traced.

The larger issue is that influencer marketing converts personality into a business asset. Deepfakes can imitate the appearance of that asset while bypassing the consent, negotiation and disclosure that make a real campaign legitimate. Audiences will become more skeptical as the technology improves, which raises the cost for honest creators and responsible brands alike.

No single lawsuit or takedown will settle the problem. The next signals to watch are clearer contract terms, faster platform response and court decisions that address AI-altered likenesses on their merits. Until then, creators should treat unauthorized endorsement monitoring as part of brand protection, and viewers should verify surprising promotions through the influencer’s established channels before acting on them.

Related coverage: Wimbledon Draws a Firmer Line on Influencer Access After US Open Debate, Mikayla Nogueira's POV Beauty Hits Sephora in Its Biggest Retail Test Yet and Mary Kay's Biggest Global Campaign Puts Shared Beauty and Creators at the Center.