The primary issue from an evidentiary perspective is reliability. Courts have typically had equity rules on what constitutes reliable evidence that need to be authenticated. Yet deepfake technology is such that an element of media production or creation may go undetected by conventional means. Maras and Alexandrou (2019) note that means of authentication like expert testimony or analysis of the metadata required to establish evidence credibility are becoming less effective against high-end forgeries. The International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (n.d.) also asserts that many legal systems do not possess remedial guidelines on determining admissibility for disputed audio and visual evidence. Thus, a lacuna exists in the rules of evidence where deepfakes can either slip through the cracks or legitimate evidence can be cast aside. Deepfakes also raise criminal liability questions. Should the intentional creation or use of deepfakes in legal proceedings constitute a standalone offense, akin to perjury or obstruction of justice? Chesney and Citron (2019) argue for legal reform, noting that existing frameworks often fail to address the malicious introduction of synthetic evidence. Some jurisdictions, such as California, have begun criminalizing certain deepfake uses (e.g., election interference or nonconsensual pornography), but comprehensive legislation covering courtroom misuse remains limited.