Brazil's Law No. 15,123/2025, deepfakes and psychological violence using AI

According to the source text, Brazil's Law No. 15,123/2025 created an aggravating factor in the crime of psychological violence against women when the conduct uses AI or another technological resource to alter the victim's image or voice.

For international readers, this should not be read as a generic deepfake statute covering every possible synthetic-media scenario. The article focuses on a specific criminal-law context: psychological violence against women under Brazilian law.

The practical message is that AI-generated or AI-manipulated media can intensify an existing form of violence. The technology becomes a means of humiliation, coercion, blackmail or reputational attack.

Deepfakes can produce a distinctive kind of injury because they attack the person through a fabricated version of the person's own face, body or voice. The harm is not only that the content is false. The harm is that the victim is forced into an image or speech act they did not create.

This is why the article connects deepfakes to dignity, psychological integrity, image rights and gender-based violence. A synthetic image can be used as a weapon even when no physical contact occurs.

For lawyers, the challenge is to explain the harm without reducing it to embarrassment. In serious cases, synthetic media can affect work, family life, mental health, safety, reputation and the victim's ability to participate in public life.

The creation of a deepfake often depends on the collection and processing of personal data, including images, voice samples, profile pictures, video fragments and behavioral traces.

Under Brazil's LGPD, that data-protection layer may operate alongside criminal and civil claims. The legal issue is not only the final synthetic content, but also the unauthorized collection, processing, sharing and storage that made it possible.

This matters for platforms, employers, service providers and other actors that may host, amplify or process the content. Data protection does not replace criminal analysis, but it adds another layer of accountability.

The article gives special attention to evidence. In a deepfake case, it is not enough to say the content is false. The legal team must preserve files, URLs, metadata, timestamps, screenshots, hashes, access records and distribution traces.

Technical expertise is also essential. Experts may need to analyze compression artifacts, generation patterns, metadata inconsistencies, platform logs and other signs that help distinguish authentic media from synthetic or manipulated media.

A weak evidence strategy can harm both sides: victims may lose the chance to prove authorship and distribution, while accused persons may face unreliable technical claims. Chain of custody protects the integrity of the process.

In urgent cases, the source text points to takedown requests, de-indexing, preservation of evidence, injunctions, orders directed at repeat accounts and requests for technical records.

Civil remedies may include moral damages and, in some cases, material damages if the content affects contracts, employment, business opportunities or other economic interests.

In criminal proceedings, lawyers must connect the facts to the relevant statutory framework, including the aggravating factor described in the article, while respecting due process and the limits of technical proof.

Deepfake cases often involve platforms because harm spreads through hosting, sharing, search, recommendation and reposting. The article recognizes that platform responsibility must be analyzed carefully, without turning every moderation dispute into automatic liability.

At the same time, repeated abuse, failure to preserve evidence, ineffective reporting systems or disregard of court orders can become legally significant.

The broader lesson is that deepfake regulation is not only about criminal punishment. It is also about platform governance, safety design, evidence preservation and institutional capacity to respond quickly.

The Brazilian approach described in the source shows how AI-generated media can be absorbed into existing legal categories while still requiring new procedural routines.

For international readers, the important point is not merely that Brazil responded to deepfakes. It is that deepfakes force lawyers to connect criminal law, image rights, data protection, platform duties and digital forensics in the same case.