Independent technical practice
AI & Deepfake Analysis
Audio, video and imagery tested for authenticity by an expert who can explain the examination in court.
Who we serve
- Law Firms
- Insurers
- Corporations
- General Counsel
- Government Agencies
Scope
The Deepfake & Digital Evidence Lab
-
Voice Verification
Examination of disputed audio for synthesis, splicing and manipulation, including recorded-call and voicemail evidence.
-
Video Authenticity Analysis
Frame, compression and generation-artifact analysis to test whether footage is what it is presented to be.
-
Image & Document Authentication
Detection of generated, composited or edited imagery and of synthetically produced documents.
-
Metadata & Provenance Analysis
Container, encoding and device-signature examination, and reconstruction of a file's handling history.
-
AI Content Detection
Assessment of whether text, media or an account's output was machine-generated, with the confidence stated plainly.
-
Expert Testimony
Reports, declarations and testimony on synthetic media, written for a court that is new to the subject.
Our Deepfake & Digital Evidence Lab consolidates these examinations under one documented methodology and one chain of custody.
Methodology
How the engagement runs
-
Acquire
Obtain the original file, not a re-shared copy. Provenance and chain of custody are recorded first.
-
Characterize
Establish how the file was produced, encoded and handled before asking whether it is authentic.
-
Test
Use several independent techniques, including artifact, signal, metadata and provenance analysis. No conclusion rests on one detector.
-
Corroborate
Cross-check against device, account and network evidence where it exists.
-
Report
A stated conclusion with its confidence and its limits, written to be examined by an opposing expert.
What counsel receives
A file another examiner could pick up.
The report preserves the questioned media, documents the comparison material and explains which indicators support or weaken each hypothesis.
No detector receives the final word. The opinion states confidence, limitations and plausible alternative explanations.
- Scope letter and stated assumptionsWhat was asked, what was examined, what was out of scope, and the assumptions the analysis rests on.
- Evidence handling recordAcquisition details, hash values, storage and transfer, and a chain-of-custody log for each item.
- Methodology statementTools, versions and procedures described so a second qualified examiner can repeat the work.
- Findings, separated from interpretationObserved facts first; expert opinion identified as opinion, with the basis for each conclusion.
- Limitations and unresolved questionsWhat the evidence cannot show, what was unavailable, and what further work would be required.
- Exhibits and supporting materialExtracted artifacts, timelines and schedules in a form that can be attached to a filing or a board pack.
- Authenticity opinion with confidence languageIndicators observed, indicators absent, and an opinion expressed in explicit confidence terms rather than a binary verdict.
Proof
Disputed executive voice recording, insurance matter
A recording purporting to capture an executive authorizing a payment was submitted in support of a claim. Examination of the audio's encoding history and synthesis artifacts established that the file had been generated, not recorded, and identified the point of fabrication. The claim was withdrawn.
Credentials & standards
- Deepfake & Digital Evidence Lab methodology
- Multiple independent authentication techniques per examination
- Chain of custody preserved from acquisition
- Court-tested expert testimony on media authenticity
Related
Related services
Frequently asked
Common questions
Can you prove a video is a deepfake?
We can establish, and document, what the evidence supports. In many matters that is a positive finding of synthesis with identified artifacts; in others it is a finding that the file's provenance cannot be verified. Both are stated with their confidence and their limits.
Is deepfake analysis admissible?
Courts are actively testing this area. We write to that scrutiny: documented methodology, multiple independent techniques, stated error characteristics, and an examiner who can be cross-examined on all of it.
What do you need from us to start?
The original file wherever possible, its source account or device, and the handling history. A re-shared or re-encoded copy can still be examined, but it narrows what can be concluded.
Talk with an examiner
Discuss the matter and the next step.
Call to discuss timing, scope and the safest way to share information. Do not send evidence or credentials by email.
24/7 hotline: 1-800-868-8189