Does Deepfake AI Increase the Risks Facing Business Leaders?

AI tools that generate synthetic voices, images and videos now feature across business functions, from marketing to customer service. These technologies promise convenience and cost reductions but also provoke sharp questions over ethics, consent and misuse.

For C-suite leaders, the risks are no longer hypothetical. The rapid adoption and deployment of these tools means risk is now present, unregulated and accessible.

AI-generated performances spark industry resistance

Synthetic media, AI-generated content that mimics real human appearance, movement or sound, is already disrupting industries.

In entertainment, actors confront AI models that train on vast libraries of their work without consent, then recreate their voices or faces.

This friction is visible in the case of Zelda Williams, a film director and the daughter of the late actor Robin Williams.

Zelda expresses strong disapproval over deepfake recreations of her father, describing them as “personally disturbing.”

Discussing the subject, she has previously posted online: “To watch the legacies of real people be condensed down to ‘this vaguely looks and sounds like them so that’s enough’, just so other people can churn out horrible TikTok slop puppeteering them is maddening.

“Stop calling it ‘the future.’ AI is just badly recycling and regurgitating the past to be re-consumed. It’s a waste of time and energy – and believe me, it’s NOT what he’d want.”

Her comments target a broader discomfort over authenticity and artistic integrity, especially when the subject cannot give consent.

These same concerns are beginning to affect corporate communication. Businesses using synthetic media for customer-facing roles must consider whether audiences trust what they see and hear, particularly in industries built on human connection.

The legal and ethical gap widens for companies

Chief Information Officer at Arup, Rob Greig, warns that businesses operate in a regulatory vacuum. “It’s freely available to someone with very little technical skill to copy a voice, image or even a video,” he says.

Fraud, impersonation and reputational harm are direct risks when AI tools can duplicate real individuals without detection.

The lack of universal legislation deepens the challenge. In the European Union, the AI Act introduces mandatory disclosures for synthetic content, but full guidance remains incomplete. In the United States, some states have personality rights laws, yet enforcement varies.

China mandates watermarking for AI-generated content, but compliance is inconsistent because, as yet, there is no global standard.

This leaves business leaders to make their own decisions, whether to disclose AI use in chatbot responses or marketing videos, and whether to implement synthetic voice content without audience transparency.

Some platforms, such as Instagram, trial content labelling, but business-oriented platforms like LinkedIn have no clear policies.

The uncertainty places brands at risk of backlash or litigation. Legal action is already underway against companies, including OpenAI and Stability AI, where creators argue their copyrighted material was used in AI training datasets without permission.

At the heart of the issue lies the material AI systems learn from, often drawn from performances and content created by professionals who never consented to their reuse.

When AI becomes a ‘character’: redefining identity

One of the more controversial uses of this technology is the creation of “AI actors.” Dutch comedian Eline Van der Velden creates a synthetic performer named Tilly Norwood, promoted as a potential “next Scarlett Johansson.” Van der Velden defends her creation as a piece of art: “She is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work... Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation.”

Yet SAG-Aftra, the US actors’ union, objects to this framing. “It’s not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer programme that was trained on the work of countless professional performers,” it states.

The union argues that such AI creations “have no life experience to draw from, no emotion”, and that audiences reject content “untethered from the human experience". For industries reliant on genuine emotional engagement, from marketing to advertising, this warning resonates.

Synthetic characters may save costs and offer novel campaign formats, but they risk alienating audiences if trust and authenticity erode. This becomes a brand concern when customers question the reality behind the voices or faces they interact with.

Meanwhile, debates over data, consent and ownership continue. AI tools rely on training data, often scraped from public platforms or media libraries. Whether that data is used with permission affects not only legal liability but also public perception.

The absence of ethical clarity creates complications for leadership. Executives must consider if the tools being used align with their corporate values, legal obligations and audience expectations.

What leadership needs to know now

Synthetic media now appears in campaigns, customer interactions and internal comms. Without regulation or a broad public consensus, business leaders must chart their own course, taking note of several key considerations including:

• Should customers be informed when they are interacting with AI-generated agents?

• Are synthetic materials sourced legally and ethically?

• How will the business respond to potential backlash or reputational risks?

The answers will vary by industry and brand, but the risks are consistent. In Greig’s words, the tools are already in the hands of anyone with a laptop. The choice facing businesses is how to use them transparently and responsibly—or risk eroding trust in the process.