Can AI-generated fake text testimonials endorsing a fraudulent note also be prosecuted?
Yes — AI-generated fake text testimonials (written endorsements attributed to a real collector or expert) carry the same legal exposure as deepfake videos. The medium is irrelevant: BNS Section 340 covers forgery of any document (including text); IT Act Section 66D covers cheating by personation using any computer resource; and BNS Section 318 covers cheating through any deceptive representation. The fact that the text was AI-generated rather than written by a human does not affect the legal analysis — what matters is that a false attribution was created and used to induce financial harm.
Text forgery — BNS Section 340
BNS Section 340 defines forgery as making any false document with intent to cause a person to part with property. A fake text testimonial — 'Mayank Agarwal of UNC Museum has authenticated this ₹10 note as worth ₹50,000' — attributed to a real named person without their consent is a false document. Its creation with intent to induce payment is forgery under Section 340. The AI generation of the text is the tool used to create the false document — the offence analysis is identical to a human writing the false attribution. Punishment: up to 2 years imprisonment.
AI-generated fake reviews — the platform dimension
When fake text testimonials are published on selling platforms (OLX, Facebook Marketplace) as seller reviews or buyer endorsements, the IT Rules 2021 create an additional layer of accountability. Significant social media intermediaries are required to maintain mechanisms to prevent the publication of misleading content. A platform that allows AI-generated fake reviews to proliferate without detection or removal mechanisms is potentially in breach of its IT Rules compliance obligations. Reporting fake reviews to the platform's grievance officer triggers the removal obligation.
The real person's remedies
The real person whose name was used in a fake text testimonial has the same remedies as the victim of a deepfake video: FIR for BNS Section 340 forgery + Section 318 cheating; civil defamation claim for use of their name in a fraud scheme; IT Act Section 66E claim for unauthorised use of their identity; and injunction to remove the fake testimonial from the platform. The text nature of the fake does not diminish any of these remedies — text forgery has the same legal weight as video forgery under the BNS framework.
Laws & authorities referenced in this chapter
BNS 2023 — §340 (forgery: false text document with intent to cause person to part with property; up to 2 years)
BNS 2023 — §318 (cheating: false attribution in text inducing payment; up to 7 years)
IT Act 2000 — §66D (cheating by personation using computer resources: AI text generation is computer resource use)
IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 — platform grievance mechanism: fake review reporting and removal obligation
AI-generated fake text testimonials: same legal exposure as deepfake videos. BNS §340 forgery (false document with intent to induce payment; up to 2 years) + BNS §318 cheating (false attribution inducing payment; up to 7 years) + IT Act §66D (cheating by personation using computer resources). Real person's remedies: FIR + civil defamation + IT Act §66E identity claim + injunction. Platform obligation: IT Rules 2021 — grievance mechanism triggers removal obligation for fake reviews. Medium (text vs video) is irrelevant to the legal analysis; false attribution + intent to defraud = same offence.
This is educational content, not legal advice. For a specific situation, please consult a qualified legal professional. Excerpted from Currency, Coins & The Law by Mayank Agarwal, Part 38: Deepfakes, Voice Clones & AI Fraud — Deepfake Video, AI Text Endorsements, Voice Cloning, Platform Liability, Digital Evidence, Injunctions, Trademark Protection, Community Anti-Fraud Protocol.