Chiles v. Salazar

On March 31, 2026, actor David Chiles initiated a landmark civil suit against Maria Salazar and her company Salazar Technologies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Chiles alleged that the defendants developed and distributed a generative AI application capable of producing hyper-realistic deepfake videos. Without consent, the platform was used to create and monetize non-consensual intimate imagery featuring his likeness, causing severe emotional distress and professional damage. The complaint asserted violations of California's right of publicity statute, intrusion upon seclusion, and defamation. Salazar moved to dismiss, arguing the AI was a neutral tool and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the platform from user-generated outputs. The case rapidly became a flashpoint in the regulation of synthetic media.

Judge Laura Chen denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that actively training and deploying an AI specifically designed to replicate individuals without consent does not qualify for Section 230 immunity. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury awarded Chiles $2 million in compensatory damages and issued a permanent injunction barring Salazar Technologies from using his likeness. The verdict established that AI systems can create developer liability separate from user-generated content.

Whether an AI developer can be held directly liable for unauthorized deepfake content generated by its model, or whether platform immunity under Section 230 and First Amendment protections for expressive tools shield the company from such claims.

The ruling sent shockwaves through the tech industry, immediately influencing federal efforts to pass the NO FAKES Act. Social media platforms and AI startups scrambled to implement robust consent verification and watermarking protocols. The case galvanized public support for non-consensual deepfake victims and became a defining precedent in the global discourse on balancing innovation against fundamental personality rights.