> Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seem

> Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seems like a reasonable argument to make, but according to the judge, a flawed one. IANAL, but this sounds appropriate to me? Couldn't all forms evidence be hit with various types of "this might be fake" claims? So I think it's fair that the court assert that you must claim "this is fake", then be willing to battle it out with the opposing side. Otherwise it's not a defense, it's just empty words, isn't it?