The “deepfake detector” paradigm shift: The case for media authentication in court 

Digital evidence provides prosecutors and courts with crucial evidence—identifying or exonerating suspects, pinpointing timelines, and reconstructing events. But the growing sophistication of synthetic content and AI-generated deepfakes are eroding our ability to trust what we see and hear. Courts must grapple with a simple question regarding digital evidence: is it real? 

In an attempt to answer this question, a market of “deepfake detectors” and similar platforms have emerged with the purpose of detecting synthetic media. These platforms rely upon algorithms trained on large datasets to identify AI in media—essentially using AI to combat AI. Despite years of effort, at a significant cost and dedication of resources, these deepfake detector tools have proven to be ineffective at the task they set out to tackle. They cannot provide demonstrably reliable, court-admissible outputs. 

A study conducted by Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, in collaboration with South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University, evaluated 16 top deepfake detectors and found none could consistently identify deepfakes in real-world scenarios. Perry Carpenter, Chief Human Risk Management Strategist at KnowBe4, tested five deepfake detectors and they all failed. Each of the detectors had major flaws leading to false positives, false negatives, and general confusion. A 2025 report by WITNESS underscores the shortcomings of current AI detection tools, noting they frequently fall short in real-world situations due to issues with explainability, fairness, accessibility, and contextual relevance. Other studies have ranked the accuracy of deepfake detectors as approaching the level of “random guessing.” 

What technicians, investigators, prosecutors, and courts really need is media authentication—a forensic process to confirm whether digital media has been altered, where it came from, and whether it can be trusted as evidence. Prosecutors need tools that provide them with the ability to collect, analyze, and defend digital media that will stand up in court. 

Why deepfake detection tools fail in digital evidence 

Deepfake detectors generally use AI algorithms to analyze submitted data. These tools might generate a score or a flag, but they fall short of what is required for reliable and court-admissible evidence. Some of the issues which make deepfake detectors inadmissible in court include: 

• Inaccuracy: The accuracy of deepfake detection tools for identifying synthetic media in real-world applications has been called into question time and time again. 
• Incompleteness: Deepfake detection tools specifically look for signs of generative AI, but do not consider any “traditional” means of editing or manipulation. There is also a lack of evaluation of media originality when only looking for signs of deepfakes. 
• Lack of transparency: Many deepfake detection tools operate as “black boxes,” where the underlying AI models are not easily understood or explainable. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for legal professionals to explain how results are generated, raising questions about reliability and trustworthiness. 
• Inconsistency: Different detection tools produce different results based on varying conditions, such as the quality of the media, the type of manipulation, or the system on which they are run. Generative AI algorithms employed by deepfake detection tools may produce different results when tests are repeated. This lack of repeatability means results are unreliable. 
• Confusing results: Many deepfake detector tools’ results are reported as a probability, often resulting in an “undetermined” output. 

When determining innocence or guilt, the legal system demands more than suspicion—it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For prosecutors, relying on deepfake detectors introduces the risk of potentially inaccurate results that are not helpful in identifying manipulation, resulting in inadmissible evidence, challenged credibility, or even case dismissal.  

Media authentication, not speculation 

Magnet Verify is designed to verify the authenticity of digital photos,videos, and audio files using forensic methods that can be explained, repeated, and defended in court. It doesn’t rely on assumptions. Instead, it performs a detailed structural analysis of each media file. Its key features include: 

• Comprehensive media authentication: As a purpose-built forensic media authentication platform, Magnet Verify identifies the origin and provenance of media files, providing accurate, in-depth context of whether or not a file is what it purports to be. This allows for the identification of all kinds of editing/manipulation (including generative AI) as well as proving originality. 
• Clear reporting: Magnet Verify’s patented structural analysis returns a clear, deterministic result about a file’s generational history. 
• Explainable findings: Magnet Verify’s training courses are designed to provide investigators and examiners with all the skills needed to accurately interpret and explain results, both in written reports and in courtroom testimony. 
• Court-admissible evidence: By generating trustworthy, comprehensive reports, Verify helps legal teams submit credible media evidence that withstands courtroom challenges. 

Magnet Verify uses a patented method for authenticating digital media and identifying its source, setting it apart from conventional tools. It goes beyond surface-level metadata and visible content to reveal deeper forensic signals, giving investigators a reliable and comprehensive foundation for verifying the origin of digital evidence in court. This independent verification helps confirm the evidence has not been altered and supports its reliability and admissibility in court. 

Training and certification make all the difference 

Even the most powerful tools are only as effective as the professionals using them. That’s why training and certification are a core part of ensuring court readiness. While there’s no such thing as “court-approved software,” there are court-accepted methods—and individuals who are trained to use them properly. 

Prosecutors who understand the fundamentals of digital forensics and media authentication are far better positioned to explain the evidence to a judge or jury and defend it under cross-examination. Magnet’s training programs help legal teams and investigators: 

• Understand how media files are created, stored, and potentially altered 
• Use digital forensics tools to perform forensic analysis that holds up in court 
• Generate and present forensic reports with full documentation 
• Maintain the chain of custody and avoid contamination or procedural errors 

Combine the right forensic tools with the proper training and you gain the credibility to present digital evidence in court that stands up under pressure. 

The key to court-admissible media evidence 

Prosecutors can’t afford to rely on unproven detection tools that lack legal defensibility. Deepfake detectors do not suit the needs of the modern prosecutor introducing evidence in court. Media authentication does. The results from Magnet Verify can provide examiners with trusted, scientifically validated methods for verifying the authenticity of digital media. It offers the transparency, detail, and reproducibility needed to withstand legal challenges. By investing in forensic tools and training, prosecutors have the tools to build stronger cases. 

Learn more about how Magnet Verify and Magnet Forensics can give you the investigative edge you need to work faster, smarter, and with greater confidence in the outcomes. We’re here to support you with every step of the process. If you have any questions or would like to learn more, reach out and contact us anytime.