How vulnerable are you to digital scams driven by deepfake content?

The recent proliferation of artificial intelligence tools has made creating characters and voices, used by criminals to convince people to part with their money, more common than ever. Lauro Accioly and Julia Caldeira show how new technology has made deepfakes more dangerous, who is most vulnerable to being deceived and what organisations can do to protect us.

One of miriad sinister ways artificial intelligence can be used is by generating deepfake content , where avatars of people, either famous or known to us, persuade us to act. In June 2025 an AI-manipulated video appeared to show Brazilian footballer Ronaldo Nazário endorsing an online gambling app called Plinko. The video was placed on Facebook where it reached over 600,000 views. But clicking on the link sent users to different gambling sites.^[1]

Scams and fraud have long be a feature of the internet. But in the age of AI, human judgment is only one factor: algorithms, sophisticated mechanisms and active yet opaque mediation by platforms also play a role. AI should not be viewed negatively, but rather as a technology that needs to be regulated so it can be used safely and in accordance with users’ rights.

Many citizens, governments, businesses are becoming increasingly concerned with the misuse of AI. Tech Even tech bosses are warning of the risks. Dario Amodei, the chief executive of Anthropic, has called for the pace of models to be slowed down and more closely monitored. And Bill Gates warned recently that, in the wrong hands, AI could cause the deaths of up to one billion people. He maintains that self-regulation is insufficient and urges the American government to adopt stricter legislation, safeguards and monitoring mechanisms.^[2][3]

Unethical and illicit use of generative technologies also poses a growing threat to corporate security. Businesses and organisations have also been significantly affected by the use of deepfake content. One striking case , from 2024, involved synthetic media used during a video conference to simulate the presence of a company’s chief financial officer and other executives, persuading an employee to transfer approximately $25 million into fraudulent accounts.^[4][5]

Preventing deepfakes

Deepfake content is often approached primarily as a problem to be managed through harm-reduction strategies such as content moderation, fact-checking, digital literacy and regulatory measures. Preventive mechanisms, such as technical safeguards , educational campaigns and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening the population’s digital literacy, get comparatively little attention.^[1]

This may be a mistake. Preventing deepfake content must include groups who may feel apprehensive or vulnerable when navigating the digital environment safely. And enhancing society’s digital capabilities has become a pressing collective responsibility .^[6]

This challenge is becoming ever more urgent. A significant share of both public and private services, from booking medical appointments to paying bills and making financial transfers, now operates within the digital ecosystem. While digitalisation improves accessibility and reduces costs, it also creates opportunities for fraudsters to exploit the convenience and trust associated with these systems, increasing the risk of financial scams and other forms of deception.

The persuasive power of deepfakes

Deepfake content significantly worsens the landscape of digital fraud. Because deepfake content can generate highly realistic identity simulations, it can increase the credibility of fraudulent approaches and make detection more difficult. The sophistication of these audiovisual manipulations enhances the persuasive power of malicious schemes, making it increasingly challenging to distinguish between authentic interactions and artificially fabricated content.

A report on internet-enabled crime, published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2024, estimated that global financial losses from malicious online activities are approximately $16.6 billion. It also found that some people are more vulnerable than others. When the data are examined by age group, individuals aged over 60 appear particularly vulnerable to online scams, recording the highest number of complaints and accounting for roughly $4.8 billion in financial losses.^[7]

The growing sophistication of scams creates new challenges for safe navigation in digital environments. Even relatively low-complexity fraud schemes already pose significant risks. One example is the circulation in Brazil of fraudulent advertisements using manipulated images and videos of science communicator Drauzio Varella to promote products and health-related claims. And such schemes can be particularly effective towards in situations with limited technical knowledge and uneven digital literacy. This suggests that the continued advancement of such technologies may intensify perceptions of insecurity and undermine the digital autonomy of more vulnerable groups. There is a growing risk, therefore, that older adults may withdraw from digital spaces altogether, deepening patterns of exclusion at a time when essential services and everyday social interactions are becoming increasingly digitalised.^[8]

The Ronaldo case illustrates both how platforms are both failing to take responsibility for deepfakes, and being forced to. Although many users reported the advert as a scam, Meta did not remove the advert or prioritise its review. The case was then referred to Meta’s Oversight Board , an independent panel which can make judgments about such decisions. The Oversight Board later concluded that the post violated Meta’s policies on “Fraud, Scams and Deceptive Practices” and “Spam” , and that it should also have been labelled as AI-manipulated content. The Board overturned Meta’s decision to keep the post online, arguing that it should have been removed after the first report and the associated advert should have been rejected.^[9][10][11]

But this failure by Meta is not an isolated case Recent research by NetLab identified 3,170 fraudulent advertisements using Drauzio Varella’s image on Meta’s platforms between July and December 2024, pointing to shortcomings in the platform’s moderation policies and showing how their advertising infrastructure can be used to distribute this type of content.^[12]

How can organisations respond to the challenge of deepfakes?

The risk of deepfakes is further intensified by the combination of advanced voice-cloning software, audiovisual manipulation and social engineering tactics, all of which exploit a fundamental element of organisational relationships: trust. Faced with familiar voices, visually convincing identities and seemingly legitimate communications, victims are more likely to lower their level of suspicion, making them increasingly vulnerable to sophisticated fraud schemes. A study suggests that financial losses associated with such attacks can range from $243,000 to $35 million.^[13]

As deepfakes become more sophisticated and their capacity to undermine trust, financial transactions and institutional reputation grows, businesses must adopt a multi-layered approach. The response cannot be limited to damage control after fraud has occurred. It must be built around preventive mechanisms, verification protocols and the strengthening of an organisational culture of digital security .^[14]

In practical terms, this includes implementing robust authentication systems, such as multi-factor confirmation procedures, for sensitive approvals, validation through independent communication channels and internal dual-verification protocols for high-value financial transactions. At the same time, companies must invest in ongoing staff training to recognise patterns of social engineering enhanced by synthetic content, including voice-cloning scams, audiovisual manipulation and highly personalised AI-generated communications.

This battle also has a strategic governance dimension

Organisations should incorporate deepfake-related risks into their broader risk management, compliance and cybersecurity frameworks. This means developing contingency plans and monitoring mechanisms capable of detecting the misuse of corporate identity, executive likeness or brand image in digital environments. In a context where trust itself becomes a vector of vulnerability, corporate resilience will increasingly depend on the ability to anticipate threats, adapt internal processes and strengthen digital literacy.^[15][16]

It is important to emphasise that, given the risks that deepfakes can pose in different scenarios and for different groups, digital platforms and their respective legal frameworks should be obliged to establish appropriate safeguards for the use of AI. Digital platforms are responsible for content moderation mechanisms which label synthetic content and remove fraudulent material. AI regulation needs to be discussed and implemented, taking into account the risks that these technologies may present.

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.