Purported Deepfake Video Allegedly Used to Harass Washington State Patrol Trooper

A Washington State Patrol trooper filed a lawsuit alleging that coworkers circulated a purported AI-generated deepfake video falsely depicting him in an intimate encounter with another trooper. According to the complaint, the non-consensual video was shared within the workplace and contributed to harassment and discrimination based on his sexual orientation. The creator of the video has not been publicly identified, and the agency has declined to comment due to pending litigation.

Risk classification

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

The incident involves the creation of humiliating synthetic imagery (a deepfake video) targeting a specific victim for harassment, which falls under targeted manipulation and abuse of likeness.

Additional risk subdomains

• 1.2 Exposure to toxic content: The deepfake video constitutes toxic and harassing content circulated within a workplace environment.

Causal factors

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

The incident was caused by humans (coworkers) who intentionally created and circulated the deepfake video to harass the trooper using a post-deployment AI tool.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Limited Risk: The incident involves AI-generated content (a deepfake), which falls under Risk Level 3 due to transparency and disclosure obligations associated with synthetic media.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: None named
• AI purpose: Deepfake Video Generation; Voice Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Unknown deepfake technology developers
• Alleged deployer: Unknown Washington State Patrol employee(s)
• Alleged harmed parties: Washington State Patrol employees, LGBTQ+ law enforcement officers, Epistemic integrity, Collin Pearson

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 Minor
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Minor
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Minor
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Malicious content

Reported: The report explicitly describes the creation and circulation of a deepfake video depicting the trooper kissing a coworker.

Directly caused: An AI-generated deepfake video was created depicting the trooper kissing a coworker.

Indirectly caused: The video was circulated among members of the Washington State Patrol, exposing coworkers to toxic and harassing content.

Differential treatment

Reported: The report explicitly describes discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace.

Indirectly caused: The creation and circulation of the deepfake video facilitated and exacerbated discriminatory harassment against the gay trooper.

Psychological

Reported: The report describes harassment and discrimination, which strongly implies psychological distress and hostile work environment conditions for the trooper.

Indirectly caused: The trooper suffered workplace harassment and distress due to the circulation of the deepfake video depicting him.

Inferred additional harm: The trooper and the coworker depicted in the video likely suffered significant emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation, though specific clinical details are not provided.

People affected

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

Potential causes

Management

• Failure to Prevent Harassment: Management did not maintain a safe, non-discriminatory workplace.
• Lack of AI Use Policies: WSP management failed to establish policies regarding deepfakes and AI.

Technology

• Accessible Deepfake Technology: AI tools allowed easy creation of realistic fake videos of the trooper.
• Lack of Deepfake Detection: No automated systems to detect or block deepfake media in WSP systems.

Data Inputs

• Unauthorized Personal Media: Coworkers used photos of the trooper to train the AI deepfake model.

Human Factors

• Homophobic Discrimination: Coworkers targeted the trooper based on his sexual orientation.
• Malicious Intent to Harass: WSP members intentionally used AI to create humiliating media.
• Lack of AI Ethics Awareness: Employees lacked understanding of the ethical boundaries of AI use.

Process and Methods

• Inadequate Media Monitoring: No process to monitor and flag deepfake content within the agency.
• Flawed Reporting Procedures: Lack of clear channels to report AI-enabled harassment in the workplace.

Regulatory Environment

• Weak Deepfake Regulations: Lack of strong legal frameworks prohibiting non-consensual deepfakes.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: Medium
• Reason for confidence: The report clearly outlines the allegations of the lawsuit and the nature of the deepfake video. However, details about the specific AI tool used, the creators of the video, and the exact scope of its circulation are missing because the lawsuit is pending and the agency has not commented.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI software used to create the deepfake is not identified, and the exact number of people who viewed or circulated the video is unspecified.
• Alternative interpretations: The incident could be viewed primarily as a human harassment case where AI was merely incidental, but the use of deepfake technology is central to the specific harassment claim.
• Missing information: The identity of the AI tool used, the technical sophistication of the deepfake, and the specific individuals responsible for its creation.

A Washington State Patrol trooper filed a lawsuit alleging coworkers used AI to create a non-consensual deepfake video to harass him. While representing a serious case of workplace discrimination and weaponized synthetic media, the incident is a localized civil matter with negligible national security implications.

• Overall national security impact: Negligible
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Coworkers of the trooper

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The incident is a past event currently undergoing civil litigation, presenting no immediate or near-term national security crisis.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI tool was directly controlled and operated by human users to generate specific synthetic media.
• Novelty: Established threat. The use of deepfake technology for targeted harassment and defamation is an established threat vector.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical systems, critical infrastructure, or human safety elements were impacted or threatened by this incident.
• Information security: Negligible. No intelligence capabilities, classified systems, or state-level information warfare operations were involved in this localized workplace incident.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. The incident involves a state law enforcement agency but does not threaten state authority, territorial control, or core government decision-making.
• Economic security: Negligible. There was no compromise of strategic industries, financial systems, or national technological competitive advantage.
• Societal stability: Negligible. While representing a serious violation of individual civil rights and workplace safety, the incident remains a localized civil dispute with negligible national security impact.