Aspiring Artist Cherelle Kozak Reportedly Targeted by AI-Powered Impersonation of Rapper Fat Joe

An aspiring artist in Austin, Texas, Cherelle Kozak, was targeted by a scammer using AI-generated video and voice to impersonate rapper Fat Joe. The impersonator appeared on a call, encouraged her to upload music for supposed radio play, and then demanded payment. Kozak did not comply. The scam closely resembled one that Fat Joe publicly warned about on January 5, 2025.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 4 Malicious actors
• Primary risk subdomain: 4.3 Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation

The incident involved a scammer using AI-generated deepfake video and voice to impersonate a celebrity in a targeted attempt to defraud an individual.

Causal factors

• Entity: Human
• Intent: Intentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The incident was caused by a human scammer intentionally using deployed AI voice and video generation tools to execute an impersonation scam.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Risk Level 3: Limited Risk. The report describes the use of AI-generated deepfakes ('mimic your voice and your lips and make it look like you are seemingly saying something'), which falls under transparency obligations for AI-generated content.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: unspecified
• AI purpose: Deepfake Video Generation; Voice Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Unknown voice cloning technology developers, Unknown deepfake technology developers
• Alleged deployer: Unknown scammers impersonating Fat Joe
• Alleged harmed parties: General public, Fat Joe, Fans of Fat Joe, Cherelle Kozak

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Negligible. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly exposed: 1

Potential causes

Technology

• Real-time AI Video Mapping: Software maps celebrity faces and voices onto scammers during live calls.
• Advanced Voice Mimicry: AI mimics voice and lip movements to make fake calls look realistic.

Data Inputs

• Publicly Available Media Clips: Scammers use online video and audio clips of targets to train AI.
• Minimal Data Requirements: AI software requires only a three-second clip to clone a person's likeness.

Human Factors

• Inherent Trust in Video Calls: People naturally trust the face and voice they see on a live call.
• Career Ambition Vulnerability: Victim's desire for a big break made her susceptible to the scam.
• Urge to Act Quickly: Excitement leads to acting immediately without double-checking.

Process and Methods

• Lack of Double-Checking: Failure to verify the identity of the virtual speaker before proceeding.
• Direct Money Requests: Scammers immediately request money after establishing fake trust.

Regulatory Environment

• Inadequate Prosecution Data: Lack of coordinated reports makes prosecuting scammers difficult.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report clearly details the specific scam attempt, the technology used (AI voice and video mapping), the target, and the outcome (no financial loss). The role of AI is explicitly stated and the facts are unambiguous.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific software or platform used by the scammer to generate the deepfake is not identified.

An individual in Austin, Texas was targeted by an impersonation scammer using real-time AI-generated video and voice to mimic a famous rapper. The target identified the fraud, resulting in no financial loss. This incident represents a common consumer fraud attempt with negligible implications for national security.

• Overall national security impact: Negligible
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Unknown

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The specific incident is resolved with no financial loss, representing an ongoing strategic concern regarding consumer fraud rather than an active national security crisis.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI system acted as a tool directly controlled and deployed by a human scammer to generate real-time deepfake video and voice.
• Novelty: Evolved capability. The use of real-time deepfake video and voice mapping during a live call represents an evolution of traditional phishing and impersonation tactics.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical systems, critical infrastructure, or human safety elements were impacted or threatened in this incident.
• Information security: Negligible. The incident was a localized consumer fraud attempt and did not involve state-sponsored disinformation, intelligence compromise, or systematic information operations.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. There was no impact on state authority, government decision-making, electoral systems, or core democratic processes.
• Economic security: Negligible. While part of a broader trend of financial scams, this specific incident resulted in zero financial loss and posed no threat to strategic industries or national economic stability.
• Societal stability: Negligible. The incident represents an individual target of a scam, with no broader implications for societal stability, mass surveillance, or systemic civil liberties violations.