Bulgarian Tennis Player Grigor Dimitrov Alleges Deepfake Scam Promoting Fraudulent Investment Scheme Using His Likeness

A purported deepfake video depicting Bulgarian tennis player Grigor Dimitrov has allegedly been circulating on social media. It reportedly is promoting a fraudulent stock and cryptocurrency trading program. Dimitrov publicly warned fans that the video was fake and urged them not to share personal information or engage with the linked platform.

Risk classification

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

The incident involves malicious actors using a deepfake video of a famous athlete to deceive the public into a fraudulent investment scheme for financial gain.

Causal factors

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

The incident was caused by human actors intentionally deploying a deepfake video post-deployment to execute a financial scam.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Risk Level 3: Limited Risk. The report describes the use of AI-generated content, specifically a deepfake video, which falls under transparency obligations to ensure users are aware of its synthetic nature.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: None named
• 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 Grigor Dimitrov, Unknown scammers
• Alleged harmed parties: social media users, Grigor Dimitrov, Fans of Grigor Dimitrov

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Minor. 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 Minor, 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 Minor, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Malicious content

Reported: The report explicitly describes malicious content in the form of a deepfake video promoting a fraudulent investment scheme.

Directly caused: A deepfake video of the tennis player was created and widely shared across social media platforms to promote a scam.

Inferred additional harm: The video may have been re-uploaded or shared on other platforms, expanding its reach and exposing more users to malicious content.

Epistemic

Reported: The report explicitly describes epistemic harm through the creation of a deepfake video that falsely depicts the tennis player endorsing a trading program.

Directly caused: The deepfake video fabricated the athlete's endorsement, misleading viewers into believing he supported the investment scheme.

Inferred additional harm: The proliferation of such deepfakes erodes public trust in online media and video evidence, making it harder for the public to distinguish real endorsements from fake ones.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 1
• People reportedly exposed: 1000

Potential causes

Technology

• Deepfake Generation Tools: AI tools allowed realistic replication of the player's likeness.
• Social Media Distribution: Platforms facilitated rapid dissemination of the fraudulent video.

Data Inputs

• Public Likeness Data: Publicly available media of the athlete was used to train the AI.

Human Factors

• Celebrity Trust Exploitation: Scammers exploited public trust in the athlete to lure victims.

Process and Methods

• Inadequate Content Filtering: Social networks lacked processes to block scam deepfakes before upload.

Regulatory Environment

• Weak Deepfake Regulations: Lack of robust laws penalizing the creation of malicious deepfakes.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report clearly describes a deepfake scam involving a specific public figure who has publicly refuted the video. The classification of this as a deepfake-enabled financial scam (4.3) is highly straightforward and supported by direct quotes.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI tool used to generate the deepfake is not mentioned, and the exact number of victims or financial losses is not specified.
• Alternative interpretations: None. The incident is clearly a deepfake impersonation scam.

A deepfake video of a Bulgarian tennis player was used on social media to promote a fraudulent investment scheme. The incident is a standard consumer-focused cybercrime with negligible implications for national security.

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

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The event is a localized cybercrime incident with no immediate threat to national security assets or infrastructure.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI system was used as a tool by human operators to generate synthetic media, with no autonomous operational capability.
• Novelty: Established threat. The use of deepfakes for celebrity impersonation and financial fraud is a well-established method of cybercrime.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. The incident is a financial scam using a deepfake video and does not involve any physical systems, critical infrastructure, or kinetic threats.
• Information security: Negligible. While synthetic media was used, it was for consumer financial fraud rather than a coordinated state-sponsored disinformation campaign or intelligence compromise.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. The incident does not affect state authority, electoral systems, or government decision-making processes.
• Economic security: Negligible. The scam targets individual consumers and does not pose a threat to systemic financial stability, strategic industries, or national technological advantage.
• Societal stability: Negligible. The incident involves localized consumer fraud and does not threaten social cohesion, civil liberties, or cause large-scale societal instability.