AI Manipulation in the Netherlands: The Legal Consequences of Deepfakes and False Reports
amsterdam, woensdag, 29 oktober 2025.
AI manipulation is increasingly used to spread fake news, hateful messages and deepfakes, which has serious legal implications. These practices pose a new challenge for law enforcement and the judiciary in the Netherlands, which is struggling with questions around evidence, liability and oversight. Dutch criminal law, such as defamation (Art. 261) and incitement (Art. 131), is being used to tackle these criminals, but the speed and scale at which AI tools operate make enforcement complex.
Introduction: why AI manipulation is a criminal law problem
AI tools make it possible to produce and distribute false messages, deepfakes and hate‑mongering content at high speed and on a large scale, putting pressure on traditional investigative and evidential practices and casting existing criminal law norms such as defamation, incitement and hate speech in a new light [1].
Concrete case: AI‑generated images in a political context
A recent example in the Netherlands illustrates how AI images can lead directly to political and legal responses: GroenLinks and the PvdA filed a police report after lifelike AI images of a Member of Parliament circulated online, a case that raises questions about the responsibility of the creator and the platforms on which the images appear [2][1].
How AI is used to spread fake news
Three identifiable strategies dominate: (1) impersonation of persons via deepfakes to spread misleading visual and audio claims; (2) personalised misinformation through analysis of user behaviour and microtargeting; and (3) automated scaling where AI generates thousands of variants of a message within minutes, causing disinformation to spread faster and become harder to contain [1].
Legal frameworks already applicable
In the Netherlands, existing criminal law provisions such as defamation (Art. 261), incitement (Art. 131) and the provisions against hate speech (Art. 137c–137e) are being used to address AI‑generated offences; at the same time, the digital scale and evidential challenges raise questions about the liability of creators, intermediaries and platforms [1].
European regulation and privacy responsibilities
The EU AI Regulation explicitly refers to the risk of systems that deceive people and classifies certain manipulative AI applications as an unacceptable risk; in addition, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes requirements on transparency and the processing of personal data by AI systems — both frameworks influence which enforcement options are available and what duties platforms and developers bear [1].
Technical and forensic countermeasures
Forensic researchers are developing detection methods such as pixel‑pattern analyses and speech analysis to expose AI manipulation; these technical tools are seen as essential for evidence in criminal cases and civil proceedings against creators of deepfakes and misleading content [1].
Implications for media literacy and democracy
AI manipulation undermines public information processes by weakening trust in authentic messages and enables targeted political microtargeting, increasing voters’ vulnerability and threatening the integrity of electoral processes — this requires both technical and education‑oriented resilience among the public [1].
Practical tips to recognise fake news and deepfakes
- Check the source and look for independent confirmation of the same image or audio; 2) watch for unnatural visual artefacts (such as odd skin textures, inaccurate eye or lip movements) and audio gaps; 3) investigate whether an account has previously been associated with misleading content; 4) be extra critical of highly emotional or polarising content; 5) report suspicious content to the platform and consider filing a police report for concrete threats or defamation, as criminal law instruments are available [1][2].
Limitations and uncertainties in investigation and evidence
[alert! ‘The scale of AI generation makes it difficult to identify those responsible and to provide causal evidence; legal procedures lag behind technical developments and cross‑border dissemination complicates investigation’] [1].
What platforms and policymakers are doing now
Platforms are increasingly being held responsible for detecting and combating AI‑generated defamation, incitement and hate speech; at the policy level this is leading to discussions about mandatory liability for AI systems and stricter governance within the EU frameworks [1].