Case Law On Ai-Assisted Cryptocurrency Fraud, Theft, And Cross-Border Laundering Prosecutions
1. Delfi AS v. Estonia (European Court of Human Rights, 2015)
Facts: A major Estonian news portal, Delfi, published an article about a ferry company, which attracted around 185 reader comments. Approximately 20 of those comments were offensive or threatening toward the company’s owner. Delfi had an automated filtering system and a takedown process but the comments remained online for six weeks.
Legal issue: Was the portal liable under the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) for user-generated comments? The question: to what extent do platforms have responsibility for content posted by users?
Holding: The ECtHR held that Delfi could be held liable for the comments. The Court found the measure of interference with the portal’s freedom was justified and proportionate because Delfi was a professional publisher, profited from comments, and had means to moderate them.
Significance: While not explicitly about AI or algorithm-driven propagation of disinformation, the case sets a precedent for platform responsibility. It signals that large platforms cannot always claim ignorance of harmful user-content, especially when they profit and have structural control.
Relevance to AI-driven disinformation:
As social media algorithms amplify content automatically (via recommendation engines, trending systems), this case supports the idea that platforms may incur liability for how user-content is managed and amplified.
It emphasises that automated systems (although here only filtering and takedown) may impose obligations of oversight.
2. Gonzalez v. Google LLC (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023)
Facts: The family of Nohemi Gonzalez (killed in an attack overseas) sued Google (parent of YouTube) alleging that YouTube’s algorithmic recommendation engine (“tailoring” content to users) directed users into ISIS recruitment videos. They argued YouTube’s recommender system played a role in facilitating content that led to her death.
Legal issue: Was the recommendation algorithm of YouTube covered by the immunity provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Act, and can Google be liable for recommending terrorist content?
Holding: The Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of another related case (Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh). The decision did not create a sweeping new standard, but it signalled careful judicial attention to algorithmic amplification and platform liability.
Significance:
Marks a shift toward more scrutiny of algorithms (“automatic” recommendation) and how they may contribute to harmful information flows.
Indicates that merely relying on user-uploaded content may not shield platforms if recommendation engines proactively serve harmful material.
Relevance to AI-driven manipulation:
Recommender systems are a kind of automated algorithmic system (AI/ML). As they shape what users see, they become vectors for manipulation/disinformation.
Legal implications: platforms may need to audit, explain, or monitor algorithmic behaviours that amplify harmful narratives.
3. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023)
Facts: Victims of a terrorist attack (Reina nightclub) sued Twitter, alleging that Twitter’s platform aided and abetted a designated terrorist organization by facilitating communication and content related to that group. Among the claims was that Twitter’s algorithmic systems and suggestion mechanisms helped promote extremist content.
Legal issue: Whether an internet service provider can be held liable under the Antiterrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333) for “aiding and abetting” terrorism by providing an interactive service that recommends user content.
Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not sufficiently establish a “concrete nexus” between Twitter’s operations (including its algorithms) and the terrorist attack to support aiding and abetting liability.
Significance:
Although the Court rejected liability in this case, it is important because it acknowledges the role of algorithmic systems and social platforms in potential harm.
It sets limits but opens the space for future claims about algorithmic amplification, recommendation systems and content moderation.
Relevance to AI-driven disinformation/propaganda:
This case ties directly to the idea of automated systems recommending/propagating content with harmful outcomes (disinformation, radicalisation).
The legal test (nexus, substantial assistance) may influence future cases about bots/AI-systems that amplify disinformation campaigns.
4. Sudhir Chaudhary v. Meta Platforms & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2025)
Facts: A prominent Indian journalist sought interim relief from the Delhi High Court against the unauthorised use of his voice, image, likeness and statements in AI-generated deepfake videos that circulated on social media platforms (including Meta/YouTube/Facebook). The content attributed false statements to him, manipulated his voice/image and was widely shared — swelling public perception of his views inaccurately.
Legal issue: Does misuse of generative AI (deepfakes) on social media platforms violate rights to personality, publicity, image & voice, and do intermediary platforms have obligations to remove such content?
Holding: The court granted an ad-interim injunction protecting his personality rights (name, image, voice). It directed intermediaries to take down unauthorised content and recognized that AI-generated deepfakes pose new threats to individual rights.
Significance:
Novel case in that it deals explicitly with AI-generated synthetic media (deepfakes) on social platforms and the remedy via personality/ publicity rights.
Sets precedent for takedown obligations when AI-driven content misrepresents persons and spreads via social media.
Relevance to disinformation/propaganda context:
Deepfakes are a tool of disinformation and propaganda — manipulation of voice/image to mislead.
Demonstrates how courts are responding to autonomous/semi-autonomous AI systems generating misleading content and the responsibility of platforms & creators.
Key Legal Themes & Research Insights
From these cases and associated scholarship, the following themes emerge in the context of AI-driven social media manipulation, disinformation and propaganda:
Automated/algorithmic amplification as vector
Algorithms (recommendation engines, trending feeds) serve as automated amplifiers of user-content. The Gonzalez and Taamneh cases highlight this.
Research shows social bots significantly amplify low-credibility content in early spreading moments. arXiv+2arXiv+2
Implication: liability may shift from only content creators to platforms/algorithms that facilitate propagation.
Synthetic media / deepfakes as disinformation tools
AI-generated video/audio/image content (deepfakes) blur the line between real and fake. DergiPark+2lawyersclubindia+2
The Sudhir Chaudhary case shows individual rights perspectives; but this also links to mass-propaganda uses (false leaders’ messages, election interference).
Legal frameworks must adapt to handle unauthorized synthetic content, identity rights, defamation, privacy and public interest.
Platform/intermediary responsibility vs user-content
Traditional law treats platforms as intermediaries with limited liability (e.g., Section 230 in U.S.). But algorithmic mediation changes the dynamic.
Delfi and Gonzalez both show courts grappling with platform responsibilities and where automated systems fit in.
The question: when does a platform become an active participant (via its algorithm) rather than passive host?
Human agency and mens rea in automated systems
Disinformation campaigns often involve human actors designing bots, coordination, automation scripts, but the actual dissemination is automated. Research shows coordinated bots undertook campaigns. arXiv+1
Legal challenges include identifying the human actors behind AI/bot operations, proving intent/knowledge, establishing causation or nexus (as in Taamneh).
For AI systems that generate content independently, attribution becomes harder.
Regulatory and doctrinal gaps
Many jurisdictions currently lack specific legislation addressing AI-generated disinformation or automated amplification.
Research suggests the need for due-diligence obligations on platforms, transparency for algorithms, labelling synthetic content. The Times of India+1
Legal scholars argue for frameworks covering synthetic media, election interference, identity protection and platform algorithmic accountability.
Summary
The four cases illustrate how existing law is adapting to automated/algorithmic content dissemination and synthetic content (deepfakes).
They show responsibility may attach to platforms, algorithms, and human actors behind them.
Nonetheless, there are significant challenges in attribution, proving causation, intent, and in applying traditional liability models to AI-driven disinformation.
The research base indicates social bots and algorithmic systems play a disproportionate role in spreading low-credibility content; intervention may require platform regulation, algorithm transparency and synthetic content labelling.
RELATED Blog
0 comments