Akhemd Yakoob (“Mr Yakoob”), a solicitor, has settled to pay “substantial damages” and costs to Cheryl Bennett (“Ms Bennett”) for defaming her on TikTok by posting a deepfake. This decision has provided further clarity on how deepfakes can and should be litigated.

A deepfake is a type of synthetic media, typically video or audio, created using artificial intelligence techniques such as deep learning to manipulate or generate realistic-looking content, often depicting individuals saying or doing things they never actually did.

Griffin Law associate, Keeley Parry, wrote about the potential issues deepfakes could raise in elections. Her prophetic article can be read here.

Defamation is a communication about an individual (“A”) to a third party that is false, and causes, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of A. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (“the DA”) states as follows:

“(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, the body serious financial loss.”

Slander is defamation that is spoken/transient. Libel is defamation that is published in a permanent form. This article will deal with libel.

Background

In May 2024, Mr Yakoob was in the running to become Mayor of the West Midlands as an independent candidate. Mr Yakoob is a widely followed solicitor, commonly dubbed the “TikTok Lawyer”.

Ms Bennett was researching voting patterns in the area on behalf of the Labour Party’s candidate, Qasim Mughal (who is also a friend of Ms Bennett).

Mr Yakoob shared a video of Ms Bennett talking with a resident whom she canvassed. The video was edited using deepfake technology to depict Ms Bennett using racist language. It has since been established that Ms Bennett never used such language in the original footage. Mr Yakoob was not responsible for editing the video, and the person responsible remains unknown.

Mr Yakoob shared the video to his considerable following, which resulted in Ms Bennett receiving abuse to such an extent that her employer (a school) told her it was too dangerous for her to be on the premises. Ms Bennett said the reaction to the deepfake being published by Mr Yakoob had (understandably) “ruined her life.”

This was the first time deepfake technology had been litigated in the courts for defamation specifically.

Legal Analysis

The doctored video itself is the false publication (libel).

The third party in this instance is Mr Yakoob’s TikTok following and anyone else who views it.

The serious harm that Ms Bennett suffered was the damage to her reputation that portrayed her as racially discriminatory. The publication of the video also led to followers of Mr Yakoob’s social media account attending the addresses of Ms Bennett’s parents and grandmother to find her.

The entire situation presented a real danger to Ms Bennett to the extent that her employer advised her not to come to work for her own personal safety.

Did Mr Yakoob have a defence?

There are several defences to accusations of libel found in statute (I will discuss only the defences relevant to this matter).

1. Truth (Section 2 of the DA)

Mr Yakob could not rely on this defence, as the publication was false – obviously. Even if he reasonably believed it was true that Ms Bennett did use racist language, this cannot be relied upon, as to be successful in defending under this section, the imputation complained of must be “substantially true”.

2. Honest opinion (Section 3 of the DA)

To rely on this defence, three conditions must be met:

i. The statement must be an opinion;
ii. The basis of an opinion must be indicated within the statement complained of, or indicated; and
iii. It needs to be shown that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact existing at the time of publication.

The defence is defeated if the claimant is able to prove that the defendant did not genuinely hold the offending opinion.

3. Public Interest (Section 4(1) & (2) of the DA)

To rely on this defence, the defendant would need to show that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and that the defendant reasonably believed publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest. Moreover, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

This defence would have perhaps been the most obvious to use in this case. While it would have been in the public interest if Ms Bennett had made the comments depicted in the deepfake video, and if it were true, it would have been reasonable for Mr Yakoob to believe publishing the video was a matter of public interest – Mr Yakoob should have taken steps to verify that the video was true and legitimate.

Mr Yakoob still does not know who created the video, or who the original publisher was.

4. Reportage (Section 4(3) of the DA)

This defence can be relied on if the libelous statement was (or formed part of) an accurate and impartial account of a dispute which the claimant was a party to. If a journalist / publisher reports on the dispute completely impartially, then the publisher does not need to take any steps to verify the truth of the statement.

Mr Yakoob could not rely on this defence, as he was not reporting on a dispute impartially. He was using the deepfake video to undermine the Labour party in his local election, in order to advance his own standing.

Despite the matter settling without the need to go to Court, it has been reported that Mr Yakoob paid a substantial sum to Ms Bennett. Moreover, as the identity of the original publisher/creator of the video remains unknown, it may be deduced that there was no due diligence undertaken to verify the legitimacy of the video.

As this is a new arena for defamation/libel, there is no specific case law determining how the courts would apply the legislation to deepfake technology. Innovative lawyers are needed to apply the law to such circumstances.

Damages in defamation

In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1797, Nicklin J awarded £350,000.00, the current cap for damages in defamation cases. As the matter between Mr Yakoob and Ms Bennett settled, the terms of the settlement, including the amount paid, will remain confidential, however the capped amount gives us an insight into what could have been paid.

Griffin Law are experts on privacy and defamation matters. If you have been subject to libelous publications, or your privacy has been infringed, we can assist you.

Griffin Law is a dispute resolution firm comprising innovative, proactive, tenacious and commercially-minded lawyers. We pride ourselves on our close client relationships, which are uniquely enhanced by our transparent fee guarantee and a commitment to share the risks of litigation.  For more details of our services please email justice@griffin.law or call 01732 52 59 23.

GRIFFIN LAW – TRANSPARENT FEES. TENACIOUS LAWYERS. TRUSTED PARTNERS.

Nothing in this document constitutes any form of legal advice upon which any person can place any form of reliance of any kind whatsoever. We expressly disclaim, and you hereby irrevocably agree to waive, all or any liability of any kind whatsoever, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, to you or any other person who may read or otherwise come to learn of anything covered or referred to in this document. In the event that you wish to take any action in connection with the subject matter of this document, you should obtain legal advice before doing so.