Media reports are increasingly covering cases of influencers and private individuals filing criminal complaints because deceptively real pornographic photos and videos of them are being created and distributed using artificial intelligence (AI). Given the shocking quality of these forgeries, there is often a perception that Swiss law is lagging behind this development and that a dangerous legal vacuum exists.

This assessment is incorrect. Although the Swiss Criminal Code does not contain a provision titled “deepfake ban,” the Swiss legal system provides a robust set of instruments to effectively defend against this form of digital abuse.

From photo manipulation to AI forgery: a technological escalation

The manipulation of images to degrade individuals is not a new phenomenon. As early as 2018, politician Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin was the victim of manipulated pornographic depictions. At that time, however, these were still relatively simple photo montages.

The key difference today lies in the quality and accessibility of the technology. Modern AI applications enable even laypersons to generate hyper-realistic video and image sequences with minimal effort—so convincing that even close acquaintances can hardly recognize them as fake. This perfection of deception massively amplifies the psychological burden and social harm for those affected.

Criminal law protection against deepfake pornography

Contrary to some opinions, creators and distributors of deepfake pornography do not act with impunity. Several criminal offences according to the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) may be relevant.

• Identity misuse pursuant to Art. 179decies SCC:
  Anyone who uses another person’s identity without their consent in order to harm them is liable to prosecution.
• Unauthorized dissemination of sexual content pursuant to Art. 197a SCC:
  Anyone who makes non-public sexual content accessible without the consent of the identifiable person is liable to prosecution. This also applies to generated depictions that give the impression of a real recording.
• Pornography pursuant to Art. 197 SCC:
  The Federal Supreme Court interprets the concept of producing pornography very broadly. Even the targeted downloading or saving of content may qualify as an act of production. In the case of content constituting hard pornography (e.g., involving violence or fictitious minors), production and possession for personal use are already punishable. Once such content is made accessible to others, the threshold for criminal liability is clearly crossed.
• Defamation offences pursuant to Art. 173 et seq. SCC:
  Anyone who, contrary to better knowledge, attributes dishonourable conduct to the victim—namely participation in pornographic acts—may be liable for insult, defamation, or calumny.

Naturally, the applicability of these offences must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Civil law protection against deepfake pornography

The most effective and direct protection for affected individuals lies in civil law. The creation and dissemination of deepfake pornography constitutes a serious unlawful infringement of personality rights. In particular, the right to one’s own image is fundamentally violated. The Federal Supreme Court has clearly held that no one may be depicted without their consent—especially not in a manipulated, intimate, and degrading context.

Affected individuals have powerful legal tools at their disposal:

• Action for removal: To obtain a court order requiring deletion of content from websites, platforms, and search engines.
• Action for injunction: To prohibit future creation or dissemination.
• Financial claims: Victims are entitled to damages for financial losses and compensation for moral harm suffered.
• Further possible measures under personality rights protection.

Practical challenges in addressing deepfake pornography

What is lacking are low-threshold reporting mechanisms or private initiatives such as #NetzPigCock|, including an online tool against unsolicited explicit images. In addition, many of the websites and platforms on which pornographic content is shared allow users to act anonymously, meaning that perpetrators often remain unknown at first.

It is therefore all the more important to document the relevant content and the accounts involved. This remains crucial for both civil and criminal enforcement against deepfake pornography. At the same time, content and accounts should first be reported to the respective websites and platforms and requested to be removed. Such content often also violates the platforms’ own policies. Knowledge of the perpetrator is not required for criminal proceedings. If the perpetrator is known or if the website or platform does not promptly remove the content, civil action is recommended.

Nevertheless, victim support and advisory services are available in Switzerland to assist affected individuals with various steps. Given the novelty and complexity of the phenomenon, legal assistance is highly advisable.

Conclusion

Deepfake pornography is not a phenomenon without legal remedies. Swiss law provides a dense network of criminal and civil provisions to effectively defend against it. The protection of personality rights under the Civil Code proves to be a central and powerful tool.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding right to the protection of your personality.