Artificial intelligence has made it increasingly easy to create realistic images, videos, and audio that appear to depict real people doing or saying things that never happened. Minnesota lawmakers are responding by updating existing criminal laws to account for these new technologies.
Effective August 1, 2026, Minnesota added “forged digital likeness” to conduct that can be prosecuted under the state’s identity theft laws.
The change means allegations involving AI-generated or digitally manipulated representations of another perso n may now lead to identity theft charges in Minnesota when the other requirements of the statute are met.
For someone accused of creating or using a deepfake, however, the existence of manipulated content is only part of the question. How the material was created, why it was used, whose identity was involved, and what evidence connects the accused to the conduct may all become important in a criminal case.
What Is a Forged Digital Likeness Under Minnesota Law?
The phrase “deepfake” is commonly used to describe digitally manipulated or artificially generated media that realistically depicts another person.
Minnesota’s identity theft law now uses the term “forged digital likeness.” Specifically, the 2026 update amends Minnesota Statutes § 609.527 by expanding the legal definition of identity to include a “forged digital likeness.” This ensures the statute applies even when traditional identifiers, like a driver’s license or Social Security number, were never stolen.
The change is designed to account for technology that can create convincing representations of real people without requiring someone to physically steal a driver’s license, Social Security card, credit card, or other traditional identifying document.
AI tools can now imitate a person’s appearance or voice with remarkable accuracy. Depending on how that content is created and used, the conduct may raise criminal identity theft issues.
How Does Minnesota’s New AI Identity Theft Law Work?
The 2026 change expands Minnesota’s existing identity theft law rather than creating a completely separate crime called “deepfake identity theft.”
That distinction matters.
The fact that an image, video, or recording was manipulated does not automatically establish identity theft. Prosecutors still have to establish the requirements of the applicable criminal statute.
In a case involving a forged digital likeness, investigators may focus on questions such as:
- Whose identity or likeness was used?
- Who created or manipulated the content?
- Who possessed or distributed it?
- How was the content used?
- What was the accused person’s intent?
- Was the content connected to fraud or another unlawful purpose?
- What digital evidence connects the accused to the material?
The answers may determine whether digitally manipulated content becomes evidence of a criminal offense.
How Are Identity Theft Penalties Determined in Minnesota?
Because “forged digital likeness” was added into Minnesota’s existing identity theft statutory framework, any resulting charges follow the state’s standard penalty tiers under Minn. Stat. § 609.527.
Minnesota does not impose a one-size-fits-all penalty for identity theft. Instead, the severity of the charge, ranging from a misdemeanor to a major felony, depends primarily on two factors:
- Financial Loss: The total combined monetary value stolen or loss incurred by direct and indirect victims.
- Number of Victims: How many individual targets or entities had their identities misappropriated.
In cases involving AI deepfakes or forged digital representations, prosecutors must establish those loss thresholds or victim counts to justify specific charge levels. Challenging how investigators calculate direct victims or quantify alleged losses can be a critical element of a defense strategy.
What Types of Deepfakes Could Lead to an Investigation?
AI-generated content can take many forms.
A forged digital likeness might involve an altered photograph, a fabricated video, an AI-generated voice recording, or other digital material designed to appear as though it depicts a real person.
For example, investigators could encounter allegations involving fabricated content used to impersonate another person in communications or transactions.
The technology itself is not necessarily the central issue. What may matter more is how the likeness was used and whether the other elements of Minnesota’s identity theft law are present.
That is why accusations involving deepfakes should not be reduced to the question of whether something was AI-generated.
Digital Evidence May Be Central to an AI Identity Theft Case
Cases involving AI-generated content are likely to depend heavily on electronic evidence.
Investigators may examine:
- Phones and computers
- Social media accounts
- Email and messaging accounts
- Cloud storage
- AI platforms and applications
- Account login information
- Metadata
- Internet activity
- Financial or transaction records
One significant issue may be attribution.
Finding a forged image or video on a device does not necessarily answer who created it, who controlled the relevant account, or how the material was used.
Shared devices, compromised accounts, cloud synchronization, forwarded files, and other circumstances can complicate the connection between digital evidence and a particular person.
Intent Can Matter in an Identity Theft Investigation
Context can also be critical.
The same technology can be used for many different purposes. AI-generated media might be created as satire, entertainment, an experiment, a scam, or part of an attempt to impersonate someone.
A criminal case therefore requires more than simply pointing to the existence of an altered image or recording. Prosecutors must prove the elements required by the identity theft statute as it applies to the alleged conduct.
Communications surrounding the creation or use of the material may become important evidence of intent. Investigators might examine text messages, emails, search history, financial activity, or communications with other people to determine what they believe the accused intended to accomplish.
The defense may dispute that interpretation or challenge whether the evidence actually connects the accused to the alleged conduct.
Is Minnesota’s Deepfake Identity Theft Law the Same as Its New Nudification Law?
No. Minnesota enacted another law in 2026 addressing technology that can digitally alter images or videos to create sexually explicit material without the depicted person’s consent.
That law targets access to and operation or promotion of certain “nudification” technology and provides civil remedies for people depicted in the resulting material.
The addition of forged digital likenesses to Minnesota’s identity theft laws is a separate change.
Depending on the alleged conduct, AI-generated content could potentially raise issues under more than one law. Determining which statute applies requires looking closely at what was created, how it was used, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct.
What Should You Do If Police Are Investigating You for an AI-Related Crime?
Digital investigations can develop before the person being investigated knows that police are involved.
If law enforcement contacts you about an allegedly forged image, video, recording, or online account, be cautious about immediately trying to explain the situation.
Statements made to investigators can become evidence. You also may not know what electronic records police already possess or how they are interpreting them.
You have the right to remain silent and the right to consult an attorney.
You should also avoid deleting accounts, messages, files, or other potential evidence after learning about an investigation. Electronic information that appears harmful may contain context that ultimately becomes important to the defense, and destroying evidence can create additional legal concerns.
Defending Against New Types of Digital Allegations
Minnesota’s 2026 identity theft change reflects how quickly artificial intelligence is affecting criminal investigations.
The technology may be new, but the state still has to prove a criminal case. Questions about identity, intent, attribution, authenticity, and the reliability of digital evidence can all matter when someone is accused of using another person’s likeness unlawfully. Fs
The criminal defense attorneys at Sieben Edmunds Miller represent clients facing identity theft, fraud, and other serious criminal allegations throughout Minnesota. If you are under investigation or have been charged with a crime involving AI-generated content or another person’s identity, contact our firm to discuss your case.
Frequently Asked Questions About AI Deepfakes and Identity Theft in Minnesota
Can a deepfake lead to identity theft charges in Minnesota?
Potentially. Minnesota added “forged digital likeness” to its identity theft laws effective August 1, 2026. Whether particular conduct constitutes a crime depends on whether the requirements of the applicable statute are met.
Is creating an AI image of another person automatically identity theft?
No. The 2026 change brings forged digital likenesses within Minnesota’s identity theft framework, but prosecutors still must prove the elements required for the charged offense.
Can AI-generated audio or video be investigated as identity theft?
Potentially. Digital representations can raise identity theft issues depending on what was created, how another person’s identity was represented, and how the material was used.
What evidence could police examine in a deepfake investigation?
Police may examine phones, computers, online accounts, messages, cloud storage, AI applications, metadata, financial records, and other electronic evidence.
Is Minnesota’s deepfake identity theft law the same as its nudification law?
No. Minnesota’s 2026 restrictions involving nudification technology are separate from the amendment addressing forged digital likenesses under the identity theft statutes.
What should I do if I am accused of using AI to impersonate someone?
Avoid deleting potential evidence or making statements about the allegations before understanding the investigation. You have the right to remain silent and to consult a criminal defense attorney.
