AI and Deepfake Analysis, Media Authenticity and Expert Testimony
Expert Analysis of AI Generated Audio, Video and Images
One side calls the recording, the photograph or the page of text a fake, and the other calls it genuine. Global Digital Forensics examiners preserve the original file, trace it to the device and account that produced it, test it with independent methods and report what the evidence supports. Our examiners have testified in federal and state courts, and the initial consultation is free.
A Deepfake Question Is a Digital Evidence Question
Global Digital Forensics has operated since 1992, long before anyone had to ask whether a voicemail was synthesized. The questions have not changed: where did the file come from, what happened to it along the way, and what do the records show. Our examiners have been deposed and cross examined in federal and state courts, and they bring the discipline that carries computer, phone and email findings into those courtrooms to every recording, image and document in dispute.
Audio, video, images and text each call for different methods, and no single detector score decides the question. Before a detector's output carries weight in our report, we check how it was calibrated, how it behaves on compressed or reposted material and how often it errs in each direction. That is what keeps an opinion standing when the other side brings a different tool with a different score.
You know the examiner who will sign the report and take the stand before work begins, and where a file carries content credentials we validate them against the C2PA content credentials explainer.
If a recording, an image or a cloned voice is already in the case file, get a free consultation and an examiner will tell you what to preserve before anyone forwards it again.
Law Firms, Insurers and Employers Who Bring Us Disputed Media
- Litigators testing or defending a recording before it reaches a jury
- Insurers examining the photographs and video behind a claim
- Companies hit by a cloned executive voice or a fabricated document
- General counsel who need findings a board can act on
- Government agencies examining media within their authorized scope
Scope
What We Examine in Disputed Media
Audio authenticity
Calls, voicemails and meeting recordings examined for splicing, editing and voice synthesis through waveform, spectral, timing and encoding analysis, with comparison against reference recordings of the speaker where they exist.
Video authenticity
Frame structure, timing, compression history, lighting, geometry and lip synchronization tested against the camera, phone or platform the footage is said to come from.
Images and scanned documents
Photographs and scans examined for compositing edges, resampling, sensor and compression patterns, metadata and scene consistency, and for the traces synthetic generation leaves behind.
Metadata and provenance
Containers, codecs, embedded metadata, device signatures and content credentials read to reconstruct how the file was captured, exported, shared and reencoded.
Suspected AI content
Text, images or account output alleged to be machine generated, with every detector result weighed against its calibration and the material it was tested on.
Reports and testimony
Reports, declarations and testimony that walk a court through synthetic media findings, with the basis and confidence of each conclusion stated plainly.
Every engagement names the media examiner, the methods that fit the material and the custody arrangements before work starts. Call (800) 868-8189 to discuss yours.
Methodology
Four Steps From Original File to Signed Opinion
Preserve the original media
We obtain the earliest copy that exists, hash it and record its provenance and custody before anything else, because a reposted copy has already shed metadata and detail the original still carries.
Examine signals, metadata and structure
We reconstruct how the file was captured, encoded and exported, then apply independent artifact, signal, metadata and provenance tests, so ordinary processing is accounted for and no conclusion rests on one detector.
Corroborate with related evidence
Device records, account activity, cloud originals and publication history are compared with the media findings to confirm or challenge the claimed origin and sequence.
Report the findings
The report states the supported conclusion and its confidence with the reasoning another qualified examiner needs to test it, so counsel sees the strengths before the deposition.
The first step is the one that cannot be redone. Send us the original before it is forwarded, converted or uploaded again; our guide Authenticating Questioned Photographs, Audio and Video explains what to keep and from where.
What the report delivers
Your Authenticity Report and the Record Behind It
You receive a report that preserves the questioned media, documents the comparison material and explains which indicators support each explanation, delivered to counsel first so you decide how to use it.
Indicators, their confidence and the plausible alternative explanations are weighed together. A detector result is one observation among several.
- Scope letterThe question, the material examined and the working assumptions, recorded before work starts.
- Evidence handling recordAcquisition details, hash values, storage, transfers and the custody log for every item from the moment it reaches us.
- Methodology statementTools, versions and procedures named so another qualified examiner can repeat the work and reach the same observations.
- Findings, separated from interpretationObserved facts kept apart from expert interpretation, with the basis for each conclusion identified.
- Next stepsThe further material, such as the original phone or the account export, that would take the analysis further.
- ExhibitsExtracted artifacts, timelines and schedules organized for a filing, a hearing or a board presentation.
- Authenticity opinion with stated confidenceThe indicators observed and absent, with the conclusion expressed in explicit confidence terms instead of a bare verdict of real or fake.
Method walkthrough
How We Examine a Disputed Voice Recording
Take a recording that appears to capture an executive authorizing a wire transfer. We obtain the earliest copy of the audio and reconstruct its encoding history, compare it with reference recordings of the speaker and apply synthesis tests whose behavior on that kind of material is documented. The report then states what the recording shows and how strongly, so the company, its insurer and its attorneys can act on it.
Credentials & standards
- Our examiners have testified in federal and state courts and have been deposed and cross examined.
- Independent techniques test each finding from more than one direction.
- Custody records follow the media from acquisition through testimony.
- Sixteen US offices, an international line and a 24/7 hotline.
Talk it through with a senior examiner at (800) 868-8189, or send the details for a free consultation.
Frequently asked
Proving a Deepfake, and What It Takes to Start
Can you prove a video is a deepfake?
We tell you what the evidence supports and how strongly. Depending on the material, the findings may identify synthesis or alteration, show the file is consistent with its claimed source and history, or name the further evidence that would settle the question, and the report sets out the basis for each conclusion.
Can a deepfake examination support expert testimony?
Yes. Every opinion is built for technical scrutiny, with the methodology, the independent techniques applied and the known error behavior of each documented, and the examiner who did the work explains it in deposition and at trial.
What do you need from us to start?
The original file wherever it can be obtained, the device or account it came from and whatever is known about how it was handled. A shared or reencoded copy can still be examined, and the report explains how those changes bear on the findings. Call before anyone forwards the file again.
Free consultation
Tell Us About the Disputed Media
On the first call a senior examiner asks what the media is supposed to show, where the original lives and who disputes it, tells you what to preserve today and outlines the examination, the timeline and the report.
Answered around the clock through the 24/7 hotline.
GDF does not accept pro se litigation cases, and GDF may decline matrimonial or family law cases at our discretion.
Reviewed by Joseph Caruso, Founder, CEO and CTO, CISSP. Last reviewed .