When a Claim of Manipulation Enters a Case
As AI-generated and AI-edited video and audio have become more accessible, it's increasingly common for an internet defamation matter to include a dispute over whether footage is authentic, selectively edited, or entirely fabricated. That question matters both for evaluating the underlying claim and, in some cases, because the manipulated content itself is the defamatory act — a fabricated video depicting someone saying or doing something they never did raises distinct evidentiary and, in some jurisdictions, distinct statutory considerations from a false written statement.
Authentication of video evidence generally has to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 901 or its state equivalent, and manipulation claims raise that bar substantially. I structure my technical analysis specifically around what a court is likely to require for authentication or, on the flip side, what would support a good faith challenge to authenticity.
Technical Evaluation
That includes reviewing file metadata, compression artifacts, and other technical indicators that can support or undermine a claim of manipulation, comparing disputed footage against known-authentic source material where available, and documenting the specific claims that hinge on the video's authenticity for the expert report.
Escalation When Needed
Not every video authenticity question can be resolved through general technical review, and some matters warrant a dedicated digital forensics specialist with deeper video and audio forensic tooling than a general internet investigation typically requires. Part of my role is recognizing that line early and, where appropriate, coordinating with retaining counsel on bringing in additional specialized expertise before the window to do so meaningfully narrows.