1

Deepfakes:
Deceptions, Mitigations, and Opportunities

Mekhail Mustak1,2
1
Department of Marketing and Sales Management, IESEG School of Management,
Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9221 -LEM - Lille Economie Management, France
2
Department of Marketing & International Business Turku School of
Economics, University of Turku, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]

Joni Salminen
University of Vaasa, Finland

Matti Mäntymäki
Turku School of Economics, Finland

Arafat Rahman
Hanken School of Economics, Finland

Yogesh K. Dwivedi
School of Management, Swansea University, Bay Campus, Fabian Bay, Swansea,
UK

Department of Management, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Pune,

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, Maharashtra, India

Acknowledgment: Mekhail Mustak expresses gratitude to Liikesivistysrahasto (The

Foundation for Economic Education, Finland) for financial support towards this

research.

ABSTRACT
Deepfakes—artificial but hyper-realistic video, audio, and images created by algorithms—are
one of the latest technological developments in artificial intelligence. Amplified by the speed
and scope of social media, they can quickly reach millions of people and result in a wide range
of marketplace deceptions. However, extant understandings of deepfakes’ implications in the
marketplace are limited and fragmented. Against this background, we develop insights into the
significance of deepfakes for firms and consumers—the threats they pose, how to mitigate
those threats, and the opportunities they present. Our findings indicate that the main risks to
firms include damage to image, reputation, and trustworthiness and the rapid obsolescence of
 2

existing technologies. However, consumers may also suffer blackmail, bullying, defamation,
harassment, identity theft, intimidation, and revenge porn. We then accumulate and present
knowledge on the strategies and mechanisms to safeguard against deepfake-based marketplace
deception. Furthermore, we uncover and report the various legitimate opportunities offered by
this new technology. Finally, we present an agenda for future research in this emergent and
highly critical area.

Keywords: Deepfake; fake photo; fake video; artificial intelligence; machine learning;
deception; opportunities; threats; challenges; protection; marketing
 3

1 INTRODUCTION

The “successful” moon mission was a hoax! The “truth” is the Apollo 11 astronauts actually

never returned from the moon. In an incredibly realistic video, the then president of the United

States, Richard Nixon, delivered a televised speech to the nation in a gloomy voice: “Fate has

ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest

in peace!” A sad day for humanity! Although the Apollo 11 mission was successful in reality,

this “deepfake” video1 was created by the MIT Center for Advanced Virtuality to generate

public awareness of the dangers of this emerging artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology.

In the words of Francesca Panetta, the Project Co-Lead and XR Creative Director:

“We hope that our work will spark critical awareness among the public. We want them

to be alert to what is possible with today’s technology (...) and to be ready to question

what they see and hear as we enter a future fraught with challenges over the question

of truth.”

Deepfakes are digitally manipulated synthetic media content (e.g., videos, images, sound

clips) in which people are shown to do or say something that never existed or happened in the

real world (Boush et al., 2015; Chesney & Citron, 2019; Westerlund, 2019). Advances in AI—

particularly machine learning (ML) and deep neural networks (DNNs)—have contributed to

the development of deepfakes (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Kietzmann et

al., 2020; Mirsky & Lee, 2021). These look highly credible and “true to life” to the extent that

distinguishing them from authentic media can be very challenging for a human (see Figure 1).

Thus, they can be used for the purpose of widespread marketplace deception, with varied

ramifications for both firms and consumers (Europol, 2022; Luca & Zervas, 2016). In fact, a

recent study by scientists from University College London ranks fake audio or video content

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rkQn-43ixs
 4

as the most worrisome use of AI in terms of its potential applications for crime or terrorism

(Caldwell et al., 2020). But, simultaneously, this emerging technology has the potential to bring

forth major business opportunities for content creation and engagement (Etienne, 2021; Farish,

2020; Kietzmann et al., 2020).

[Please Insert Figure 1 About Here]

Deception in the marketplace is ubiquitous, which makes it a fundamental issue in

consumer research and marketing (Boush et al., 2015; Darke & Ritchie, 2007; Ho et al., 2016).

In general, deception refers to a deliberate attempt or act to present others with false or omitted

information with the aim of creating a belief that the communicator considers false (Darke &

Ritchie, 2007; Ludwig et al., 2016; Xiao & Benbasat, 2011). Thus, it is an intentional

manipulation of information to create a false belief in others’ minds (i.e., deceiving parties), all

of which can be further increased through deepfakes and hurt consumers and firms alike (Xiao

& Benbasat, 2011). Deception permeates the marketplace, harms health, welfare, and financial

resources, and undermines trust in organizations and the marketplace as a whole.

For example, a fake video of a CEO admitting the company has been charged with a large

regulatory fine (or class-action lawsuit) could cause severe damage, with a crash in the stock

value of the company being one of the first negative consequences. These types of attacks have

already begun to occur. According to The Wall Street Journal (Stupp, 2019), in one high-profile

case, cybercriminals used “deepfake phishing” to deceive the CEO of a UK energy company

into transferring $243,000 into their account. Using AI-based voice spoofing software, the

criminals successfully impersonated the head of the firm’s parent company, deceiving the CEO

into believing he was speaking with his boss. The cybersecurity organization Symantec has

stated that it encountered at least three examples of deepfake-based fraud in 2019, resulting in

millions of dollars being lost (Zakrzewski, 2019). Moreover, consumers are susceptible to

blackmail, intimidation, sabotage, harassment, defamation, revenge porn, identity theft, and
 5

bullying (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Cross, 2022; Europol, 2022; Fido et al., 2022; Karasavva

& Noorbhai, 2021; Whittaker et al., 2020).

Yet at the same time, this emerging technology also carries positive potential through

different forms of commercialization (Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Maksutov et al., 2020).

Deepfakes may even help change or innovate business models (Kietzmann et al., 2020). The

opportunities pertaining to deepfakes are becoming even more relevant as consumers start

spending more time in virtual worlds, which will foreseeably attract more attention and

investment from firms across the board. For example, Facebook has changed its name to Meta

and pursuing a virtual reality world called Metaverse, in which the company is purported to

invest 10 billion dollars in the fiscal year of 2021 alone.2 This virtual world will largely be

composed of deepfake objects. Thus, this latest technology will usher in new opportunities, as

well as new dangers. This dualistic nature is why, in the present article, we investigate the risks

and opportunities of deepfakes, which are virtually unexplored in the present business

literature.

Another critical factor making deepfakes relevant is their dissemination via the internet

and social media—both of which have become integral to people’s personal and professional

lives, allowing consumers to access easy-to-use platforms for real-time discussions, ideological

expression, information dissemination, and the sharing of emotions and sentiments (Perse &

Lambe, 2016). Consequently, the scale, volume, and distribution speed of deepfakes, combined

with the increasing pervasiveness of digital technologies in all areas of society, will have

profound positive and negative implications in the marketplace (Kietzmann et al., 2020;

Westerlund, 2019).

2 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-earnings-report-2021-q3-metaverse/
 6

However, as deepfakes are an emergent technology and complex in nature (Chesney &

Citron, 2019; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Kietzmann et al., 2020; Westerlund, 2019), the current

understanding of their implications is scattered, sparse, and nascent (Botha & Pieterse, 2020;

Chesney & Citron, 2019; Kietzmann et al., 2020). As extant literature only offers anecdotal

and disparate indications related to the possibilities of deepfakes for firms and consumers

(Chesney & Citron, 2019; Vimalkumar et al., 2021; Wagner & Blewer, 2019), there is a lack

of coherent understanding of marketplace deceptions through deepfakes and the specific

opportunities they present for both companies and consumers (Chesney & Citron, 2019;

Kietzmann et al., 2020; Westerlund, 2019).

To date, marketplace deception has been primarily investigated from the consumer

perspective, with a heavy emphasis on how it affects consumers (Taylor, 2021; Xie et al.,

2020). The effects of deepfakes on businesses have received scant attention, despite the fact

that researchers have noted firms are not immune to their effects (Chadderton & Croft, 2006;

Xie et al., 2020). Moreover, deepfakes have a legitimate potential to create commercial

opportunities, distinguishing them further from other forms of deception such as fake reviews

or opinion spam that only produce adverse effects (Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Kietzmann

et al., 2020; Malbon, 2013). Consequently, both consumers and firms must develop their

understanding and avoidance capabilities of deepfake deception, mitigate the harm deepfakes

can create, and enjoy the opportunities they may offer (Boush et al., 2015; Taylor, 2021).

Against this background, the purpose of this study is to generate a holistic understanding

of deepfakes vis-à-vis marketplace deception and the potential opportunities they offer. More

specifically, we address the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ 1: How might deepfakes contribute to marketplace deceptions?

• RQ 2: How might firms and consumers avoid the malicious effects of

deepfakes?
 7

• RQ 3: What opportunities do deepfakes offer to firms and consumers?

Through the application of an integrative literature review (ILR; Toronto & Remington,

2020; Torraco, 2016), we analyzed the previous research to create a comprehensive

understanding in relation to our purpose. In addition to business academia, we reviewed

literature from multiple research streams with footprints in deepfake research, including

communications, computer science, information science, journalism, and social sciences, to

synthesize existing knowledge. Through the current study, we establish a foundational

understanding of deepfakes in terms of marketplace deception for firms and consumers (van

Heerde et al., 2021). We also accumulate and present the protection mechanisms from their

harmful effects, offering insights into the legitimate opportunities presented by this emerging

technology.

2 CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS

2.1 Understanding Marketplace Deception

Marketplace deceptions are based on misperception, misprediction, non-perception, or

non-prediction (Mechner, 2010; Taylor, 2021). Deception is a common feature of marketplace

interactions between business entities, marketers, consumers, and any other party seeking to

gain benefit in an illegal or unethical manner (Boush et al., 2015). Such deceptions may include

misrepresentations through numerical information or research results, distraction and

information overload, display of false emotions in sales and service delivery situations, brand

mimicry, and lying about product features and usage outcomes (Boush et al., 2015; Mechner,

2010; Xie et al., 2020).

The early academic literature in this area focused mainly on deceptions through

advertising and marketing communications. As early as 1975, Gardner (p. 42) posited the

following: “If an advertisement (or advertising campaign) leaves the consumer with an
 8

impression(s) and/or belief(s) different from what would normally be expected if the consumer

had reasonable knowledge, and that impression(s) and/or belief(s) is factually untrue or

potentially misleading, then deception is said to exist.” This argument emphasizes how a

marketer might take advantage of consumers by disseminating false information. Given that

such communications are frequently developed and disseminated by professionals, it is

reasonable to presume that the false information in question is created with the intent of

profiting at the expense of consumers (Chadderton & Croft, 2006; Xie et al., 2020).

Consequently, marketplace deceptions through advertising result in consumers’ negative

perceptions about advertising and marketing in general, as well as their skepticism of future

advertising claims (Darke & Ritchie, 2007).

In the context of e-commerce, Xiao and Benbasat (2011) argue that product-related

deceptive information practices can encompass the manipulation of information generation,

information content, and information presentation. For example, an e-commerce platform can

conceal potentially unfavorable information about a product or present incorrect information

about its contents on its packaging (Román, 2010; Xiao & Benbasat, 2011). Moreover, artificial

product recommendation agents—software programs that mimic individual consumers’

product interests or preferences—can manipulate recommendation systems to generate

deceptive product recommendations (Román, 2010; Xiao & Benbasat, 2011).

Similarly, because buyers rely on product reviews when making online purchases,

businesses can fabricate and distribute fake product reviews to sway buyers’ selections

(Malbon, 2013; Zhao et al., 2013). Such forms of marketplace deception (also known as

opinion spams) may be human- or computer-generated (Salminen, Mustak, et al., 2022).

Human-generated fake reviews may be sponsored by firms through false online consumer

identities (Malbon, 2013; Salminen, Kandpal, et al., 2022). Computer-generated fake reviews

use text-generation algorithms to automate fake review creation (Salminen, Mustak, et al.,
 9

2022). Irrespective of the mechanisms by which the deceptions are created and distributed, the

focus is to deceive consumers—and, in some cases, competitors—to obtain monetary or

economic gain (Luca & Zervas, 2016).

2.2 Marketplace Deception Through Synthetic Media

The use of synthetic media in marketplace deception differs from traditional deception

in several ways (Giansiracusa, 2021; Karnouskos, 2020; Mechner, 2010; Mirsky & Lee, 2021;

Van Huynh et al., 2021). Synthetic media is an umbrella term for the artificial creation or

modification of media by “machines”—more specifically, programs using AI and ML (CB

Information Services, 2021; synthesia, 2020; Taylor, 2021). Today, synthetic media include

music composed by AI, text generation, imagery and video generation, and voice synthesis

(CB Information Services, 2021; Karnouskos, 2020). Among these various forms, deepfakes

are by far the most prevalent (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Zotov et al., 2020). The term

“deepfake” was coined in late 2017 as a portmanteau of the terms “deep learning” and “fake.”

Generally, traditional forms of deception in advertising entail concealing some

information and/or presenting false information as true (Ott et al., 2013; Taylor, 2021). The

more recent technology-based forms, such as opinion spam and fake reviews, are generally

textual in nature or may include out-of-context but genuine photographs (Lappas, 2012;

Malbon, 2013; Ott et al., 2013). They are also context- and purpose-specific (Lappas, 2012).

However, the introduction of synthetic media takes marketplace deception to a whole new level

due to its versatile nature and higher appeal to human cognitive functions (Taylor, 2021;

Wagner & Blewer, 2019). These media are also much more appealing and lifelike, with broad

applications in a variety of contexts, all of which make protection from them significantly more

difficult (Maksutov et al., 2020).

The presence of visible or nonverbal clues (e.g., facial expressions, eye contact) for

evaluating a piece of information has become diminished or even nonexistent as a result of

 10

recent technological breakthroughs (Maksutov et al., 2020; Ramadhani & Munir, 2020; Tong

et al., 2020), thus heightening the degree of marketplace deception to unprecedented levels (Ho

et al., 2016; Taylor, 2021). Moreover, as computer-mediated deception has previously been

applied to language-action cues such as verbal and nonverbal immediacy (in addition to the

superfluous use of words, structured messages, or argument development) and has adapted or

mimicked interactional exchanges between messages, it has become increasingly challenging

to evaluate the truthfulness of incoming information (Ho et al., 2016; Ludwig et al., 2016).

Thus, the recent introduction of deepfakes makes marketplace deception even more damaging,

as hyper-realistic videos and other multimedia deepfakes are extremely difficult to differentiate

from reality (Boush et al., 2015; Giansiracusa, 2021; Tahir et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2020).

3 METHODOLOGY

The ILR approach that we have applied in this study is “a form of research that reviews,

critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that

new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated” (Torraco, 2005, p. 356). It is

considered a particular form of a systematic literature review (SLR; Toronto & Remington,

2020). However, the SLR approach tends to narrowly focus on a specific topic or type of study

(Booth et al., 2016). In contrast, the aim of ILR is to be phenomenologically inclusive, placing

less emphasis on the type of study, venue, and discipline (Toronto & Remington, 2020;

Torraco, 2016).

Our adoption of the ILR approach is influenced by the inadequacy of existing research

on deepfakes in the business and marketing domains. As relevant research in other fields, such

as computer science and political science, is more developed than in the business domain, it is

worth pursuing knowledge generated in those fields while analyzing any ramifications it may

have in a marketing context. Thus, the ILR approach allowed us to integrate primary
 11

knowledge from various research streams, generating coherent and insightful answers to our

research questions (Toronto & Remington, 2020; Torraco, 2016). As described by Tranfield et

al. (2003), and following their adaptation by Sivarajah et al. (2017), we applied a three-phase

approach, as illustrated in Figure 2:

Phase I – Planning the Review Process: Identifying the critical phenomenon of deepfakes

and defining the research aim and scope.

Phase II – Conducting the Review Process: Identifying studies to review, developing an

analytical framework, coding and synthesizing the relevant information, and developing the

conceptual framework.

Phase III – Reporting and Dissemination of the Research Results: Descriptive reporting

of results according to the research questions, discussing the findings further, drawing

implications from the study, and identifying future research avenues (Sivarajah et al., 2017).

“Phase I” of the research—identification of the critical phenomenon of deepfakes and

defining the research aim and scope—has already been presented in the introduction section of

this article. Next, we offer a description of “Phase II” in detail. “Phase III”—reporting and

dissemination of the overall results—is presented in Sections 4 and 5.

[Please Insert Figure 2 About Here]

Figure 2: Visual illustration of the process of this study

3.1 Data Collection and Screening (Phase II)

To identify relevant literature, we used three academic databases: Web of Science (WoS),

ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore. As a generic database, WoS is the most

comprehensive, containing over 12,000 high-impact journals and scientific articles from over

3,300 publishers. The ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore databases focus on technical

disciplines. When combined, these three databases offer extensive and balanced coverage of

the existing literature on deepfakes.

 12

We conducted detailed searches in each of the three databases. Given the nascent stage

of deepfake research, we did not want to pre-limit the searches with highly specific keywords

that could result in the omission of important papers. Rather, to identify a wide range of

publications to illuminate deepfakes and their implications, we used only the keywords

“deepfake*” and “deep fake*” (* denotes plural forms) and manually identified any associated

papers. We identified a total of 798 publications (WoS: 362; ACM Digital Library: 177; IEEE

Xplore: 259). For all publications, we recorded the title, author(s), publication outlet, year of

publication, and abstract.

We then examined the publications individually to check whether they fit within the

scope of our study. In doing so, we read the title and abstract—and, if necessary, the

introduction and conclusion—of each publication to decide whether they should be included

in or excluded from our pool of reviewed literature (Mustak et al., 2016). First, we included

any paper published in international scientific journals or established conference proceedings,

as they tend to present the most up-to-date and established knowledge across scientific

disciplines (Mustak et al., 2016). We excluded other forms of publications, such as opinion

pieces. Second, for papers present in multiple databases, we kept only one record per paper and

excluded other ones. For example, the paper titled “Deepfake Portraits in Augmented Reality

for Museum Exhibits” by Nathan Wynn, Kyle Johnsen, and Nick Gonzalez (2021) was present

in both WoS and IEEE Explore. We kept one record for it and removed the other one. We also

excluded papers with title/abstract/keywords indexed in English in the databases when the

actual publication was in a language other than English.

Finally, from this pool of publications, we selected those contributing to the aims of this

study. Here, only publications useful in answering any of our three research questions were

retained. The rest were discarded. We preferred articles with literature reviews or clear

conceptual frameworks (Torraco, 2016), as these tend to summarize previous research rather
 13

than focusing on a specific aspect of the phenomenon. We chose this “top-to-bottom” approach

because of the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon, allowing us to capture succinct

summaries from multiple fields (Toronto & Remington, 2020; Torraco, 2016). In addition, we

included empirical studies that clearly articulated implications for either consumers (users) or

firms (organizations). Our final list included 74 publications (WoS: 42; ACM Digital Library:

14; IEEE Xplore: 18). The details of these papers—including source database, title, authors,

publication outlet, publication year, addressed research questions, form(s) of deepfake

addressed, and key findings—are available in the appendix (Supplementary material, Table 3).

The 74 publications reviewed in the current study were published in 57 different outlets,

indicating that the topic currently attracts the attention of diverse publication outlets and is

highly multidisciplinary. In our pool of reviewed literature, only the following outlets

published more than one paper on deepfakes: Convergence: The International Journal of

Research into New Media Technologies (4 papers); Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking (4 papers); Communications of the ACM (3 papers); IEEE Spectrum (2 papers);

and IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society (2 papers). As illustrated in Figure 3, the

first paper was published in 2017, and there were none in 2018. But the number of publications

has increased significantly since 2019, providing a clear indication of the topic’s mounting

research significance. Simultaneously, the dotted line in Figure 3 represents the Google

popularity index value (which ranges from 0 to 100, as determined by Google Trends),

indicating that both public and academic interest in deepfakes is growing rapidly.

[Please Insert Figure 3 About Here]

Figure 1: Research articles and the Google popularity trend of deepfakes

3.2 Analytical Framework, Coding, and Synthesizing (Phase II)

Next, we systematically analyzed each article. We operationalized and followed an analytical

framework with specific questions to address the goals of the current research in a coherent
 14

and holistic manner, as suggested in previous methodological literature (Toronto & Remington,

2020; Torraco, 2016). From the research questions, we derived specific analytical questions

(AQs) to analyze the articles. Our analytical framework is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Analytical framework of this study

[Please Insert Table 1 About Here]

When analyzing the articles, we marked any text related to our analytical questions using

short and intuitive codes (Toronto & Remington, 2020). After coding, we categorized the codes

and associated texts based on their commonalities in relation to the analytical questions. We

then read and analyzed them thoroughly to elucidate appropriate answers. Once we generated

answers for each of the AQs, we grouped them according to our RQs. We then read and

analyzed the grouped answers again to check whether they coherently addressed the RQs

(Torraco, 2016). We then discussed the findings among the research team, critically examined

any disagreements in terms of interpretations, corrected any anomalies, and produced a set of

answers to the research questions on which all researchers agreed (Toronto & Remington,

2020; Torraco, 2016).

4 FINDINGS

Based on our detailed analysis of the reviewed literature, we develop a conceptual

framework to capture the deepfake phenomenon in the context of marketplace deception and

the opportunities it offers (Figure 4). The framework permits capturing an overview of the

phenomena, and simultaneously facilitates an organized presentation of the findings. We

conceptualize that this emergent and highly potent technology is dualistic in nature, thus posing

radical threats and opportunities for innovation to companies and consumers. The dotted arrows

representing threats in Figure 4 indicate that, according to our findings, the application of

existing protection strategies and mechanisms does not mitigate the harmful effects of
 15

deepfakes in a comprehensive manner and offers only partial protection. Some harmful effects

may still reach companies and consumers. The dotted arrows on the right suggest that the

positive and negative effects of deepfakes do not necessarily remain only within the spheres of

companies or consumers. Rather, they often carry spillover effects where effects on companies

can also affect consumers and vice versa.

Figure 4: Conceptual framework of this study

[Please Insert Figure 4 About Here]

In line with the conceptual framework and in response to our RQs, next, we first present

the various possible marketplace deceptions associated with deepfakes. Then, we analyze

existing knowledge regarding how firms and consumers can safeguard themselves against their

malicious effects. Following that, we identify and report the potential opportunities presented

by this emerging technology. Throughout our findings, we offer several examples illustrating

these aspects, thus permitting establishing the theory-practice links, i.e, what it means for the

“real world” (van Heerde et al., 2021, p. 1).

4.1 Marketplace Deception through Deepfakes

4.1.1 Threats to Firms

The existing literature on marketplace deception focuses primarily on consumers who are the

victims of deceptive actions and behaviors (Boush et al., 2015; Ludwig et al., 2016). However,

our study demonstrates that in comparison to traditional deceptions, the scope of threats posed

by deepfakes is significantly greater, as businesses can be harmed in many ways (Johnson &

Diakopoulos, 2021; Kietzmann et al., 2020; Zakrzewski, 2019). These include derogatory

activities such as defamation and sabotage, as well as damage to a firm’s image, reputation,

and trustworthiness (Botha & Pieterse, 2020; Schwartz, 2018; Westerlund, 2019). The

proliferation of deepfakes is subjecting companies to derogatory activities such as defamation

and sabotage, which can threaten a company’s reputation and brand image through marketplace
 16

deception, resulting in a loss of trust from customers and other stakeholder groups (Di

Domenico & Visentin, 2020; Rubin, 2019). Firms can be viciously harmed (e.g., through

reputation loss) by adversary-initiated deepfake propagation (Botha & Pieterse, 2020;

Giansiracusa, 2021; Zakrzewski, 2019). As we illustrate in our conceptual framework, these

harmful effects often spill over between companies and consumers.

An example of harm to a company’s reputation and brand image is where a firm’s senior

executive or figurehead is seen to be making compromising or deeply controversial statements

(Westerlund, 2019). The screenshot of the video we presented at the beginning of this paper

(Figure 1) is another example. In a film created by artists Bill Posters and Daniel Howe—and

in collaboration with the advertising business Canny—Zuckerberg can be seen sitting at a desk

and allegedly delivering a menacing speech on Facebook’s power (Eadicicco, 2019): “Imagine

this for a second: One man, with total control of billions of people’s stolen data, all their secrets,

their lives, their futures,” Zuckerberg’s likeness says. “I owe it all to Spectre. Spectre showed

me that whoever controls the data controls the future.” Considering the controversies

surrounding Facebook over the last few years—for example, the Cambridge Analytica scandal

(Confessore, 2018)—a deepfake video like this carries the potential to cause severe damage to

the firm’s reputation and brand image.

Another example is a fake news report in which the CEO of Pepsi (Indra Nooyi) was

deliberately misquoted as saying that Donald Trump supporters should “take their business

elsewhere.” This prompted boycott calls and a 3.75 percent decline in PepsiCo’s stock price.

Thus, misinformation can result in negative financial consequences and diminished brand

perceptions (Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Wagner & Blewer, 2019; Zakrzewski, 2019).

Similarly, videos that purposefully inflate earnings estimates can depress stock prices or harm

a company’s reputation, putting stakeholders at risk. Additionally, algorithmic extortion may

compel managers to pay a fee to avoid deepfakes being shared (Kietzmann et al., 2020).
 17

Deepfake technology may damage firms of different capacities and profiles. For

example, competitors can use deepfakes to deceive a firm’s customers or stoke negative public

opinions or confusion about a rival’s products, brands, and services (Zannettou et al., 2019).

Additionally, deepfakes can be used to harm a business by creating fake reviews of its products

and services. For instance, in a virtual brand community (VBC), the emergence of false but

highly realistic deepfake-based reviews (particularly negative reviews) can affect the

interactions of individuals with other VBC members as they begin to lose trust in the group,

weakening their interest in interacting with other members (Feng et al., 2018). Additionally, if

a business develops deepfakes as a means of providing false information to (or concealing

information from) consumers, this may increase levels of consumer distrust (Malbon, 2013;

Wu et al., 2020).

Along with harming a firm’s image, reputation, and trustworthiness through various

forms of marketplace deception, deepfake technology has the potential to harm business

models by disrupting incumbent technologies in certain industries (e.g., entertainment),

effectively rendering them obsolete (Kietzmann et al., 2020). However, the opposite situation

also exists, where such technologies may be used to enhance these industries, as we discuss in

Section 4.3.1. For instance, the dubbing and re-voicing industry, which previously translated

films to ensure words in another language matched the actor’s original lip movements, is at

risk of becoming extinct due to the advancing technological ability to change languages and

lips accordingly (Giansiracusa, 2021; Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Zakrzewski, 2019).

Similarly, deepfake technologies pose a significant threat to biometric authentication

technologies, potentially disrupting businesses providing authentication services (Botha &

Pieterse, 2020; Schwartz, 2018; Zotov et al., 2020).

 18

4.1.2 Threats to Consumers

Deception via deepfakes can have major negative consequences for consumers that extend

beyond the boundaries of firm-customer interactions, as they can be used for a variety of

malicious purposes (Whittaker et al., 2020). According to the first report by Europol (the

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation) on deepfakes, these threats

include but are not limited to harassing or humiliating individuals online, perpetrating extortion

and fraud, facilitating document fraud, falsifying online identities and fooling “know your

customer” mechanisms, non-consensual pornography, online child sexual exploitation,

falsifying or manipulating electronic evidence for criminal justice investigations, disrupting

financial markets, distributing disinformation and manipulating public opinion, supporting the

narratives of extremist or terrorist groups, stoking social unrest, and political polarization

(Europol, 2022, p. 10).

Consumers’ vulnerability, their chances of being exploited by deepfakes, and their lack

of protection are heightened due to humans’ limited cognitive abilities and ideological

prejudices (Sharma et al., 2019). For instance, a lack of media literacy or familiarity with

modern digital technologies may predispose consumers to being convinced by false or

deceptive information (Köbis et al., 2021; Rubin, 2019), stressing a new form of the digital

divide where consumers lacking the cognitive skills to detect deepfakes are at a structural

disadvantage to those possessing such skills. In other words, less sophisticated consumers can

more easily fall prey to deepfake deception. For instance, more than 70% of people in the UK

are unaware of deepfakes and their impact (Europol, 2022).

In a similar manner, consumers with insufficient knowledge of digital technology could

be exposed to deepfake technologies and further propagate digital misinformation (Nygren &

Guath, 2019). For instance, the website “Random Face Generator (This Person Does Not

Exist)” uses AI to artificially generate fake portraits of people who do not exist in reality. Figure
 19

5 shows a few examples of such portraits, but not everyone is able to guess that AI could

generate such realistic but non-existent faces in less than a couple of seconds. The AI face

generator is powered by StyleGAN, a neural network from NVidia developed in 2018.

According to the website, “AI is so developed that 90% of fakes are not recognized by an

ordinary person and 50% are not recognized by an experienced photographer” (Random Face

Generator, 2022).

[Please Insert Figure 5 About Here]

Figure 5: AI generates fake portraits—none of these people exist in reality

Furthermore, existing research indicates that certain demographic groups are more

susceptible to fake content. According to Guess et al. (2019), Facebook users over the age of

65 shared nearly seven times as many articles from fake news domains as the youngest age

cohort. Moreover, the literature suggests online misinformation is associated with the third-

person effect (Jang & Kim, 2018). The central tenet of the third-person effect is that people

tend to overestimate the influence of media (e.g., deepfakes) on other people’s attitudes and

behaviors while underestimating its effect on their own behaviors (Jang & Kim, 2018;

Schweisberger et al., 2014).

From a commercial standpoint, deepfake technology has the potential to increase

uncertainty in the marketplace and mislead consumers, resulting in their mistrust of businesses

and psychological discomfort (Botha & Pieterse, 2020; Giansiracusa, 2021; Zakrzewski, 2019).

This, in turn, can erode consumers’ purchasing intentions and impair the accuracy of helpful

technologies such as recommendation systems. Additionally, given the rapid development of

deepfake technologies that can generate human-like narratives using natural language

processing (NLP) such as GPT-3 (a text-generation model), it is reasonable to expect that the

integration of such technologies with deepfakes will only contribute to an increase in

marketplace deception (Etienne, 2021; Kietzmann et al., 2020; Westerlund, 2019).

 20

Kietzmann et al. (2020) argue that deepfakes make it more difficult for people to

respond to personalized advertisements. For instance, weighing the perceived value of highly

personalized advertisements against a perceived violation of personal privacy requires

consumers to strike a balance between the personalization of incoming data from deepfakes

and the extent to which they compromise privacy, which can be highly challenging.

Additionally, consumers who participate in a variety of virtual communities (e.g., brand

communities) frequently share similar ideologies (Zannettou et al., 2019). Accordingly,

deepfake technologies may be used to launch inherently disruptive campaigns against such

virtual communities, members of which would likely regard the message as truthful because of

the perceived parallels between the message and their embraced ideology.

Marketplace deceptions through deepfakes can take forms and shapes beyond those of

firm-customer transactions. For instance, such deceptions might have a detrimental effect on

anyone looking for employment (Chesney & Citron, 2019). According to a recent report from

Microsoft (Burt & Horvitz, 2020), more than 90% of employers use search results to make

decisions about applicants. However, these results have a negative impact in over 77% of cases,

as businesses frequently refuse to interview or recruit individuals over inappropriate images

discovered during these searches. The reasons for these findings are rather evident, and hiring

candidates who are not stigmatized by perceived negative online reputations is less risky. In

these instances, creating compromising photographs and videos of a person and making them

publicly available on the internet will significantly diminish that person’s employment

prospects. This simultaneously hurts employers, as they risk missing out on potential talent.

Beyond employment, various intelligence agencies have expressed concern that by propagating

political misinformation and meddling with election campaigns, deepfakes have implications

for national security (Europol, 2022; Westerlund, 2019), affecting consumers’ ability to stay

informed about the true state of affairs.

 21

4.2 Protection from Marketplace Deception through Deepfakes

The magnitude of the threat posed by deepfakes in terms of marketplace deception and

malevolent intent necessitates the development and availability of protection mechanisms.

Next, we offer our findings in this regard. Important to note is that even though we present the

protection mechanisms for firms and consumers separately for the ease of presentation and

reporting, they are not mutually exclusive (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Europol, 2022; Farish,

2020; Kirchengast, 2020). Thus, protecting firms from deepfakes often means malicious effects

do not spill over to their consumers and vice versa (Vizoso et al., 2021).

4.2.1 Protection for Firms from Marketplace Deception through Deepfakes

Extant studies primarily assume that the application of legal means is the primary—and often

sole—protection mechanism from traditional forms of marketplace deception (Chesney &

Citron, 2019; Langa, 2021; Ray, 2021). However, our analysis clearly shows that it is extremely

difficult to protect firms and consumers from the malicious effects of deepfakes through legal

means alone. Rather, to address the concerns posed by deepfakes, three distinct but interrelated

sorts of protection mechanisms—market, circulation, and technical, along with their legal

responses—are needed (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Langa, 2021; Ray, 2021).

For firms, market responses to protect themselves include the mechanisms and methods

they can develop and implement to educate consumers about their products, brands, and

services, helping them identify firm-sponsored and credible sources of information (Rubin,

2019). Investments in corporate social responsibility initiatives for improving public media

literacy will benefit brands and the marketplace as a whole (Bulger & Davison, 2018). Such a

strategy aims to develop consumer information, media literacy, critical thinking, and evaluation

skills that can be applied to assess the credibility and facticity of incoming information or news

(Bulger & Davison, 2018; De Paor & Heravi, 2020). Notley and Dezuanni (2019) lamented

that designing information literacy interventions requires a broader disciplinary approach than
 22

education alone and that contributions from economics, social psychology, and legal studies

are also required. Furthermore, in designing strategies for improving the deception awareness

of consumers, firms can build awareness about opinion-reinforcing versus opinion-challenging

information for consumers to use when evaluating content online (Lee & Shin, 2021). Opinion-

reinforcing information is that which confirms or validates existing beliefs or opinions, whereas

opinion-challenging information goes against the existing beliefs or opinions of an individual

or consumer (Lee & Shin, 2021).

In the market, firms can also take advantage of online brand communities to counter

marketplace deception through deepfakes (Wang et al., 2019). Such strategies include

interacting with online communities that may generate deepfake content, thereby avoiding

actions that could render firms vulnerable to deepfake attacks (Giansiracusa, 2021; Johnson &

Diakopoulos, 2021; Taylor, 2021; Wagner & Blewer, 2019). In addition, resources could be

gathered from user credibility networks, expert group domains, and user ratings to verify and

develop the credibility of information being circulated via online channels (Meel &

Vishwakarma, 2020). Similarly, firms could devise strategies for managing consumer

interactions and feedback to foster protective behaviors within the brand community in

response to the reputational dangers posed by deepfakes (Di Domenico & Visentin, 2020).

Thus, by collaborating with influential real-life figures and using deepfake technology, firms

can develop so-called online good nodes (approved artificial accounts of real people) that can

disseminate accurate information to refute or counter deceptive information (Zannettou et al.,

2019).

Limiting or strictly regulating the circulation of deepfakes can offer further protection

from their potential negative impacts. An outright ban on posting them on social media

platforms is also taking place. For instance, TikTok is working on prohibiting “synthetic or

manipulated content that misleads users by distorting the truth of events in a way that could
 23

cause harm” by updating its community guidelines (TikTok, 2019). Reddit has updated its

policy around impersonation and “does not allow content that impersonates individuals or

entities in a misleading or deceptive manner” (Reddit, 2020). YouTube has an existing ban for

manipulated media, which it defines as follows: “Video content that has been technically

manipulated (beyond clips taken out of context) to fabricate events where there’s a serious risk

of egregious harm” (YouTube, 2022). However, because many of these rules contain

subjectively interpretable terms such as “may cause harm,” “misleading or deceptive,” and

“serious risk,” they may have loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous actors.

Technical responses include limiting access to computing resources necessary for

developing and producing deepfakes. As an example, Google has banned the training of

deepfakes in Google Colaboratory, which is a product from Google Research—a hosted

Jupyter notebook service that requires no configuration and provides free access to

computational resources, including GPUs (Anderson, 2022). Further research and development

(R&D) investments in deepfake detection technologies and their successful deployment are

also critical (Pu et al., 2021; Zotov et al., 2020). In making such investments, companies can

use algorithm-based, computational detection techniques such as support vector machines and

deep learning for detecting and countering the content-, context-, and domain-dependent

features of deepfakes (Maksutov et al., 2020; Zotov et al., 2020). For example, Microsoft has

introduced the Microsoft Video Authenticator, which can analyze a still image or video to

determine the likelihood it has been intentionally altered. However, it must be noted that these

technology-based protections against deepfake deceptions come with specific limitations

owing to the fast pace of improvement in generating synthetic media (Johnson & Diakopoulos,

2021; Ramadhani & Munir, 2020). For instance, if a method is reliant on the detection of an

abnormal reflection of light in the eyes of the synthetic person, the adversarial network-based

deep learning algorithms will quickly learn how to overcome such a shortcoming (Ludwig et
 24

al., 2016; Zotov et al., 2020). In this machine-versus-machine scenario, the whole detection

method then becomes obsolete (Maksutov et al., 2020; Ramadhani & Munir, 2020). Therefore,

it is highly dependent on whether the detection technology can continuously stay one step

ahead of advances in deepfake generation.

As a further measure, firms can deploy professional fact-checking bodies or individuals

to verify and detect fake news (or deepfakes) that might be propagated against their products,

services, and brands (Lee & Shin, 2021; Nieminen & Rapeli, 2019; Zannettou et al., 2019). For

example, Facebook works with third-party fact-checkers to address content that is reported as

inaccurate or misleading and partners with more than 50 fact-finding organizations,

researchers, experts, and policymakers to find potential solutions (Westerlund, 2019). In an

effort to increase user responsibility, the company has also developed tools for users to flag

fake content and educates them on how to identify it. Similarly, Google has incorporated fact-

checking into its search engine and Google News to help minimize the spread of false

information. Wikipedia is also developing a spin-off site (WikiTribune) that employs

crowdsourcing to verify the authenticity of news sources (Hern, 2017). Businesses can benefit

from adopting and adhering to similar developmental deepfake policies across online

platforms. One crucial aspect here is equality, as larger firms may be able to leverage legal

resources to battle deepfakes while smaller ones likely cannot. Social media platforms must

enable built-in detection and reporting features that make the playing field even for all operators

facing a risk of “deepfake hijacking” (e.g., using their brand or people as part of a deepfake

production effort without consent).

In this study, when it comes to legal responses to deception via deepfakes, we found that

legal protection is rather limited in most countries (Karasavva & Noorbhai, 2021; Langa, 2021;

O’Donnell, 2021). In December 2019, the US passed its first federal legislation addressing

deepfakes (Graham et al., 2021). Moreover, some US states have enacted their own laws to
 25

address the issue. Deepfake victims have a private right of action in New York and California,

and Virginia has amended its penal code to make sharing deepfakes with necessary intent and

without consent a crime (Graham et al., 2021). Additionally, state laws in the US, such as the

Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (Illinois General Assembly, 2008), the California

Consumer Privacy Act (State of California Department of Justice, 2018), and the New York

SHIELD Act (The New York State Senate, 2019), are designed to safeguard residents’ personal

information and may offer protection against deepfakes to some extent. However, as Graham

et al. (2021) point out, as deepfake content is fabricated and artificially manufactured,

establishing a privacy breach can be extremely difficult for victims of deepfake-based

deceptions.

In the European Union, the AI regulatory framework proposed by the European

Commission will play a key role in law enforcement (European Parliament, 2021). The

framework approaches the regulation of AI and its use from a risk-based perspective.

Deepfakes are explicitly covered in terms of “AI systems used to generate or manipulate image,

audio, or video content” and must adhere to certain minimum requirements, such as labeling

content as deepfake to make it clear to users they are dealing with manipulated footage.

However, the framework is still at a proposal level and not yet operational. In other major

economies such as the UK, no legal means are available that offer direct protection from

deepfakes. However, companies and consumers may seek protection through legislation

prohibiting fraud, as well as provisions against harassment, defamation, infringement of

copyright, and data protection laws (Graham et al., 2021). The newly established Civil Code

of China, Art. 1019, essentially prohibits the violation of image rights by means of information

technology or otherwise (Wei, 2020), which may also offer some degree of protection against

deepfakes (Graham et al., 2021).

 26

Businesses are typically unable to dictate rules, regulations, and laws. In this current

state of affairs, however, they may monitor and advocate for legislation that protects the rights

of organizations targeted by harmful deepfake content. As KPMG (Anderson, 2020) argues:

“Establishing a governance framework that embraces disruptive technologies and encourages

innovation while ensuring risks are identified and managed is essential to an organization’s

ability to survive and thrive in a digital world.” Additionally, firms can collaborate with

regulators to develop, implement, and communicate laws or guidelines governing the creation

or dissemination of deepfake content (Rubin, 2019).

4.2.2 Protection for Consumers from Marketplace Deception through Deepfakes

Our analysis reveals that little research is available on how consumers may protect themselves

from marketplace deception through deepfakes. A phase of “disintermediation” has

characterized the deepfake realm. The diversity of sources involved in the distribution of

deepfakes, their potential for confidentiality, a lack of information quality requirements, the

ease with which material can be manipulated and modified, the lack of contextual clarification,

and the absence of credibility assessment objectives (i.e., subject matter, medium, and source)

substantially complicate the issue of protecting oneself against deepfakes (Hwang et al., 2021;

Viviani & Pasi, 2017).

For consumers in their everyday lives, a rather generalized but crucial protection

mechanism involves developing the capabilities necessary for analyzing and interpreting the

legitimacy of online content (Bulger & Davison, 2018; De Paor & Heravi, 2020; Viviani &

Pasi, 2017). A consideration of the reputation of the information source, the involvement of

trustworthy intermediaries such as experts and/or opinion leaders, and personal confidence

based on first-hand experiences will further enhance their protection (Hwang et al., 2021;

Viviani & Pasi, 2017; Westerlund, 2019; Whittaker et al., 2020). Additionally, developing or

gathering knowledge about products, brands, and services by customers will enhance their
 27

potential to identify and avoid misinformation (Lee & Shin, 2021). Here, enhancing analytical

thinking capabilities is of the utmost importance for consumers when examining the credibility

or facticity of incoming information.

Furthermore, consumers must be aware of the risks at the core of deepfake technologies.

For this to happen, consumers should be vigilant in the virtual environments in which they

constantly interact and develop a basic understanding (or literacy) of the technology and

existing deepfakes. To this end, online tools are becoming available. For instance, Jevin West

and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington have created a website called “Which

Face Is Real” (https://www.whichfaceisreal.com). All of the images on the site are either

computer-generated from thispersondoesnotexist.com using the StyleGAN software or are

actual photographs from the FFHQ dataset of Creative Commons and public domain images.

By putting the real and fake photos side by side, the site helps people become more analytical

of potentially false portraits.

At an individual level, a variety of social ties—defined as the diversity of offline groups

and contexts represented in one’s online social networks (Torres et al., 2018)—can help

increase awareness of fake content. Additionally, the study indicates that increasing consumer

awareness of fake content, such as deepfakes, has a beneficial effect on verification behavior

and network trust (Torres et al., 2018). Thus, combating social media’s echo chamber effect

through an active exposure to diverse perspectives and networks also represents a viable

individual-level strategy for addressing the deepfake problem (Cinelli et al., 2021; Gillani et

al., 2018). Consumers may even take an offensive coping strategy by refuting the claims

portrayed in fake content by searching for and presenting contrary evidence to protect other

consumers (Roozenbeek et al., 2021).

 28

4.3 Opportunities Offered by Deepfakes

The risks of marketplace deceptions through deepfakes are undeniable for both firms and

consumers. However, in comparison to other forms of deception used solely for unethical and

malicious purposes, the emergence of deepfake technology is unique in that it also brings forth

various positive opportunities. Here, we analyze and present the benefits of deepfakes for

businesses and consumers. As shown in our conceptual framework (Figure 4), similar to

threats, the opportunities afforded by deepfake technologies may also carry spillover effects.

Therefore, the benefits of these technologies for firms are also likely to be advantageous for

consumers and vice versa.

4.3.1 Opportunities for Firms

For businesses, opportunities include new forms of marketing campaigns, including virtual

brand ambassadors, developing cost-effective and accessible learning environments and

content, designing and deploying AI-based solutions to detect and counter deepfakes, and,

ultimately, developing new offerings and business models supported by deepfakes (Farish,

2020; Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Wagner & Blewer, 2019).

OPPORTUNITY 1: New opportunities for marketing campaigns. Firms can use

deepfakes to design and execute appealing marketing campaigns at a low cost by replacing

and/or augmenting the role of humans in marketing communications (Farish, 2020;

Zakrzewski, 2019). With deepfakes, marketing campaigns do not necessarily need to

incorporate real humans; rather, they can create artificial human-like models to attract and

engage many fans and followers (Dwivedi et al., 2021). Furthermore, deepfakes may assist in

the removal of language barriers, allowing for the creation of multilingual marketing

campaigns by dubbing videos in different languages and artificially matching lip movements

and facial expressions accordingly (Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Kietzmann et al., 2020).

This enables company executives and celebrities to speak directly to individuals using tailored
 29

messages, even addressing customers by name. Deepfakes could also be used to add

audiovisual elements to user-generated content, such as textual customer reviews and

testimonials (Wagner & Blewer, 2019; Westerlund, 2019).

OPPORTUNITY 2: Virtual brand ambassadors. Another way for businesses to use

deepfakes in marketing is to create virtual brand ambassadors. For example, the Instagram

account @lilmiquela (shown in Figure 6) depicts Lil Miquela, a fictitious idol created using

deepfake technology. Created by Brud, a Los Angeles-based startup specializing in robotics

and AI (Hsu, 2019; Koh & Wells, 2018), Lil Miquela is an artificial social media marketer and

a virtual influencer embodying the appearance and personality traits of a human (Hsu, 2019).

Despite not being real, with more than three million followers as of November 2021, Lil

Miquela has become one of the top influencers on the platform (Blanton & Carbajal, 2019;

Drenten & Brooks, 2020).

[Please Insert Figure 6 About Here]

Figure 6: Lil Miquela, an artificial social media marketer with more than three million

followers on Instagram, created using deepfake technology (Source: Instagram account

@lilmiquela)

Lil Miquela exemplifies how brands can develop virtual ambassadors for sponsorship,

disseminating their desired message through a digital avatar. For the new generations of

consumers who enjoy an immersion in social media and virtual reality, artificially created

content may not be categorically less valuable than “real” content, especially if it satisfies their

entertainment needs or other experiential purposes. This is alluded to by the fact that virtual

influencers can garner large audiences, as demonstrated by another virtual influencer, Lu do

Magalu, who boasts more than 14 million followers on Facebook, close to six million followers

on Instagram, more than 2.5 million YouTube subscribers, and more than one million followers

on TikTok and Twitter. We did not find any academic studies on the effectiveness of virtual
 30

influencers for brands—a topic ripe for future research. However, the fact that several virtual

influencers have millions of followers suggests that deepfake technology can create artificial

characters consumers find interesting enough to follow.

OPPORTUNITY 3: Developing cost-effective and accessible learning

environments and content offerings. According to the literature, deepfake technology

provides various opportunities to firms that create educational content, including the ability to

provide learners with knowledge in more convincing ways than traditional approaches

(Westerlund, 2019; Whittaker et al., 2020). This technology enables relatively inexpensive and

easily accessible video production that creates new films or shows or adapts old ones to convey

various pedagogical perspectives (Chesney & Citron, 2019). Also, celebrity voices can be used

to narrate books, memoirs can be read by the author, and historical figures can recount their

stories in their own voices using AI voice cloning software (Martin, 2020). As a result, the

listener has an immersive, high-quality listening experience. Moreover, because increasing

information literacy has been considered a means to mitigate the negative consequences of

misinformation, the technology itself could be used for education and interventions specifically

designed to address the challenges posed by deepfakes (Hollis, 2019; Notley & Dezuanni,

2019).

OPPORTUNITY 4: Designing and deploying AI-based solutions to detect and

counter deepfakes. Addressing the surge of algorithm-generated misinformation opens up a

new field of business for developing AI-based solutions and services that detect synthetic

content from human-generated content and provide consumers with warnings when confronted

with marketplace deception or suspicious content (Maksutov et al., 2020; Torres et al., 2018;

Zotov et al., 2020). Consequently, this opens the possibility of creating and selling services

designed to protect companies and consumers from deepfake deception (Chesney & Citron,
 31

2019). Such technologies could expand on a number of services that have emerged in recent

years as a result of consumer concerns about identity theft (Liere-Netheler et al., 2019).

OPPORTUNITY 5: Developing new offerings and business models supported by

deepfakes. The literature highlights the possibility that the application of deepfakes may enable

firms to develop new offerings or even entirely new business models (Dwivedi et al., 2021).

The technology can act as a valuable personalization tool for products, brands, and services

(Dwivedi et al., 2021; Farish, 2020; Wagner & Blewer, 2019). For example, news organizations

are currently examining ways to improve their efficiency and engagement through the use of

video synthesis and other synthetic media technologies. As an example, the South Korean

television channel MBN presented viewers with a deepfake of its own news anchor Kim Joo-

Ha, a snapshot3 of which is seen in Figure 7. The broadcaster told viewers ahead of time that

the newsreader would be fake and that Kim Joo-Ha was still employed. The firm behind the

deepfake, DeepBrain AI, has stated that it is searching for media customers in China and the

United States, and MBN has stated that it will continue to use the deepfake for breaking news

reports (Foley, 2022). Extending this concept, certain aspects of visual illustration, such as

animated cartoons, comic books, and political cartoons, can be streamlined or even completely

automated using image synthesis tools. Further, as the automation process eliminates the need

for teams of designers, artists, and others involved in the entertainment production process,

product costs are mitigated, enabling individuals to produce content that is indistinguishable

from that of the highest budget productions for little more than the cost of operating their

computer (synthesia, 2020).

[Please Insert Figure 7 About Here]

Figure 7: Deepfake of news anchor Kim Joo-Ha of the Korean television channel MBN

3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZg4YL2yaM0
 32

Innovative applications open new doors in the fields of augmented and virtual reality,

enabling value creation in cyber-physical systems. The technology can be used to create

“digital humans”—artificial, lifelike personas that are both interactive and communicative.

This possibility has been utilized in the concept of profound resurrection and has already been

demonstrated in the tourism sector at sites such as the Salvador Dalí Museum in St. Petersburg,

Florida, which has adopted advanced technology to bring the late Spanish surrealist (who

passed away in 1989) back to life.4 After visitors click a button adjacent to a life-sized screen,

the deepfake-based avatar leaves his easel and approaches them, offering information about his

artwork and the museum. Dalí reintroduces himself to tourists as they exit the museum,

inquiring whether they would like a selfie with him (Mihailova, 2021; Whittaker et al., 2020).

As another example, “Digital Einstein”5 embodies the personality of the actual scientist and

can answer daily quizzes about his life and work, as well as scientific questions using the

WolframAlpha computational knowledge engine. Thus, deepfakes can revolutionize customer

experiences with artificial human personages—for instance, in the form of a digital customer

assistant, sales concierge, financial advisor, or healthcare coach (Digital Humans, 2021).

4.3.2 Opportunities for Consumers

Similar to firms, deepfake technology has been indicated to offer various opportunities for

consumers. In this study, we identified two specific opportunities: 1) the enhancement of the

digital customer experience, and 2) social good and medical usage.

OPPORTUNITY 6: Enhancement of the digital customer experience. Deepfakes

carry the potential to enhance the digital customer experience (Whittaker et al., 2020). Merging

deepfakes with synthetic AI models brings forward a high degree of personalization for online

4Behind the Scenes: Dalí Lives. Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIDaxl4xqJ4

5https://einstein.digitalhumans.com/?_ga=2.133820942.1293455835.1637135902-
101885267.1637135902
 33

consumer interactions, such as online clothes shopping (Kietzmann et al., 2020; Zakrzewski,

2019). For instance, customers will be able to input their primary physical characteristics into

an online clothing store, which will then be able to generate lifelike avatars to aid in purchasing

decisions (Whittaker et al., 2020).

Thus, deepfakes may be used to create highly tailored material that transforms people

into models, allowing them to virtually try on an outfit before purchasing it. Furthermore,

targeted fashion advertising could be created that differs according to time, weather, and

audience (Westerlund, 2019). The Japanese AI firm “Datagrid” has developed an AI engine

that helps achieve these purposes and automatically generates virtual models for advertising

and fashion. This technology is called systematic model generation and can be used by fashion

advertisers or a wide range of communicators in the virtual sphere. A possible advantage of

this type of application is that consumers may perceive artificial content as catchy, entertaining,

or even emotionally engaging, thus allowing them to derive experiential value from deepfakes.

OPPORTUNITY 7: Social good and medical applications. Deepfakes can also be

deployed for social good. For instance, consumers will benefit from their use in removing the

language barriers that frequently impede the delivery of cross-cultural content and require

subtitle reinforcement. The technology will also provide a voice to people who have lost their

own because of medical conditions such as motor neuron disorders. For example, Project

Revoice (https://www.projectrevoice.org) employs deep learning principles to create video

deepfakes with customized synthetic voices based on voice samples provided by vocally

paralyzed people (Whittaker et al., 2020).

In another example, Amazon has released an experimental Alexa capability that allows

the AI assistant to impersonate the voices of users’ deceased relatives. This capability was

shown at the company’s annual MARS conference in a video depicting a child asking Alexa to

read a bedtime story in the voice of his deceased grandmother (Vincent, 2022). Rohit Prasad,
 34

Amazon’s lead scientist for Alexa AI, introduced the video by stating that adding “human

attributes” to AI systems was becoming increasingly vital “in these times of the ongoing

pandemic, when so many of us have lost someone we love.” He added: “While AI can’t

eliminate that pain of loss, it can definitely make their memories last” (Vincent, 2022).

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 General Discussion

Deepfakes are highly realistic synthetic media generated by algorithms (Chesney &

Citron, 2019; Maksutov et al., 2020) and typically distributed as social media content. They

carry the potential to create marketplace deceptions for both firms and consumers. Deepfakes

also offer various opportunities (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Kietzmann et

al., 2020; Westerlund, 2019). The current knowledge on deepfakes is scant and diffuse

(Maksutov et al., 2020; Zotov et al., 2020). In this study, we reviewed and analyzed 74 papers

related to deepfakes from the fields of business, communications, computer science,

information science, journalism, and social sciences to generate insights into their implications

for firms and customers. We provide an objective assessment of the risks that deepfake-induced

marketplace deceptions pose to firms and consumers, the protection strategies and mechanisms

against harmful effects, as well as the opportunities that deepfake technology presents.

Deepfakes can spread exponentially in an era where a large swathe of customers

increasingly uses social media as a source of information. In contrast to the “offline” world,

where individuals have historically minimized credibility uncertainty based on either the

reputation of the knowledge source (e.g., experts and/or opinion leaders) or personal first-hand

experiences, making an evaluation in the digital domain is frequently more complex (Viviani

& Pasi, 2017). The multiplicity of sources involved in the distribution of deceptive content, the

absence of information quality requirements and evaluation, the ease of manipulating and
 35

altering information, the lack of contextual clarification, and the existence of several potential

credibility evaluation objectives (i.e., content, source, and medium) make deepfakes very real

and potent threats (Viviani & Pasi, 2017). As artificial content blends seamlessly with authentic

content in digital environments, the terms reality and truth may become less relevant in

comparison to how we humans understand these concepts. Similar to the arguments presented

by Xiao and Benbasat (2011), deepfakes can be used to deceive the marketplace by

manipulating information content, presentation, and generation.

The problem is not only that deepfake technology is improving at a very fast pace

(Johnson & Diakopoulos, 2021; Schwartz, 2018); it is that the social processes through which

we collectively acquire knowledge and determine whether something is genuine or deceptive

are under threat and that the very definition of reality is a critical concern (Hwang et al., 2021;

Schwartz, 2018). This is a phenomenon where frequent exposure to false information causes

people to lose faith in what they see and hear. In other words, the danger is not necessarily that

people will be deceived just in the marketplace but that they will also come to regard everything

as deception and lose faith in the marketplace (Kirchengast, 2020; Schwartz, 2018; Tong et al.,

2020). While consumers may accept content that supports their worldviews (even if the content

is fabricated), they may lose interest in facts and develop a postmodernist cynicism in which

“what is pleasurable is genuine.” These effects of the erosion of trust and the muddying of the

borders between real and artificial have left marketers wary. According to recent polls, trust in

major institutions and the media is eroding (Ognyanova et al., 2020), and this trend is likely to

be exacerbated by the proliferation of deepfakes if appropriate controls are not put in place

(European Parliament, 2021; Langa, 2021; Schwartz, 2018).

The rise of marketplace deception through deepfakes, if not successfully addressed,

may lead to further erosion of consumer trust in business in general and marketing in particular

(Di Domenico & Visentin, 2020; Kietzmann et al., 2020). Deception protection and
 36

preparedness are crucial for consumers, firms, and the overall marketplace to the extent that it

has been labeled a “critical life skill” (Boush et al., 2015, p. 1). However, most marketing

textbooks and articles on marketplace deception treat it as a topic of purely legal interest,

primarily addressed to corporate attorneys, judges, juries, and government regulators (Boush

et al., 2015; Farish, 2020; Langa, 2021; O’Donnell, 2021; Ray, 2021). Furthermore, research

from technical disciplines such as computer or data science focuses on technology as the

primary path to deception protection (Ramadhani & Munir, 2020; Schwartz, 2018; Zhao et al.,

2020; Zotov et al., 2020). However, our research shows that protecting against deepfake-based

marketplace deception cannot be accomplished through solely legal or technical means and

that it necessitates combining market, circulation, technical, and legal responses as well as

educating and improving individuals’ abilities to distinguish truth from deception.

The marketplace is a critical context in which to study deception, particularly in the

face of the emergence of new and potent technologies (Boush et al., 2015; Schwartz, 2018; Xie

et al., 2020). Through this study, we contribute to the marketplace deception literature by

extending the overall understanding concerning deepfakes (Boush et al., 2015; Darke &

Ritchie, 2007). Indeed, the findings of this work may have broader implications for

comprehending deception beyond the marketplace. For instance, the general public is

continuously being exposed to news about politicians, celebrities, and influencers engaging in

misleading behavior, which is an issue that will only become more pronounced through the use

of deepfakes (Chadderton & Croft, 2006; Xie et al., 2020). In this regard, our study deepens

the existing understanding of various forms of deception, their effects, and the protection

mechanisms involved from the perspective of society as a whole.

Most previous studies on deepfakes have focused on a particular industry, product, or

service. While this approach has yielded valuable insights into several key domains of

deepfakes, there is a clear need for research examining the implications of deepfakes from a
 37

broader perspective (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Moreover, most studies

have perceived deepfakes as a grave danger (e.g., Giansiracusa, 2021; Graham et al., 2021;

Maksutov et al., 2020). This is understandable, as deepfakes can undeniably present a serious

threat to firms and consumers. Furthermore, the technology may appear mystical and

incomprehensible to the regular person with a non-technical background, eliciting responses of

intimidation and fear (Giansiracusa, 2021; Graham et al., 2021; Wagner & Blewer, 2019).

Nonetheless, we have aimed to highlight the dualistic nature of deepfakes (see Figure 4), as we

investigate the potential opportunities presented by this emerging and critical technology. Our

research is among the first to generate and present a balanced understanding of the phenomenon

that takes into account the perspectives of both firms and consumers and combines the

perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups.

Concerning the novelty of deepfakes in relation to other forms of market deception, the

technological advancements regarding their ease of creation and diffusion make synthetic

content more commonplace than previous market deception manifestations. As a result, firms

and consumers are transitioning into a mixed reality where components of real and fake merge

and fuse. This change has been characterized as the post-truth society and forms a more

pervasive transformation than the previous environment of deception in that, despite presenting

complex schemes and forms of deception, the previous environment was still technologically

limited and not omnipresent in people’s lives in the same way that deepfakes will be. Notably,

deepfakes seem to be part of the transition to a higher degree of digitality in people’s lives,

which involves an increasing amount of time spent in virtual and augmented realities. This

mélange of realities stresses the need for new skills from firms and consumers to cope with

object detection and veracity judgments—cognitive skills that were not required previously.

Paradoxically, part of the deepfake appeal is also its entertainment value to the point that people
 38

might, to some extent, enjoy the deception in that it has a certain sense of magic that amuses

and surprises.

5.2 Managerial Implications

Our study carries several implications for firms and managers. Deepfake technologies make it

easier for criminals to perpetrate marketplace deceptions while remaining undetected. This

study offers a comprehensive picture for firms regarding the severity of such threats. Deepfake-

based deceptions could result in direct financial damage, and negative and predatory deepfake

campaigns could destroy a company’s reputation, brand image, and stakeholder trust.

Therefore, firms need to invest in developing resources and capabilities to protect

themselves from marketplace deceptions carried out through deepfakes. This includes

investing in technology that enhances a firm’s deepfake detection and avoidance competencies.

At the same time, they should invest in human resources to enhance their capabilities of

successfully countering the potential malicious effects of deepfake technology. In addition,

managers must pay attention to any potential harm that their consumers may suffer and take

preventive measures to safeguard them.

However, we also suggest managers pay close attention to the various commercial

opportunities presented by technology and be prepared to capitalize on them. For companies,

non-deceptive, value-adding applications of deepfake-based marketing content and campaigns

can be highly beneficial, and deepfake technologies could provide advantages in advertising,

brand personification, and customer services. Moreover, we suggest that in addition to videos,

managers should be aware of and benefit from other formats of synthetic media in their

businesses. To this end, based on insights offered by CB Information Services (2021), we show

a range of applications of synthetic media for brands and retailers in Table 2.

Table 2: Applications of synthetic media for brands and retailers (Source: CB Information

Services, 2021)
 39

[Please Insert Table 2 About Here]

In light of the findings of this study, and considering the rapid evolution of the

technology landscape, adopting a proactive rather than reactive strategy is strongly

recommended. Importantly, in addition to developing new offerings, deepfakes carry the

potential of disrupting entire business models, and many firms may suddenly find themselves

taken by surprise if they do not take these aspects into account. While the application of

deepfakes is currently focused on entertainment and humoristic jokes, the historical trajectory

of technology development has shown that the performance of a given technology tends to

change from humor to action. Such a trajectory may also take place for deepfakes. Therefore,

the entertainment-versus-value ratio might change going forward.

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

As with any research, our study has certain limitations. First, we only investigated

scientific papers indexed in three specific databases (Web of Science, ACM Digital Library,

and IEEE Xplore). Despite the depth and breadth they offer in terms of literature coverage, we

have inevitably missed some valuable knowledge available in other databases. Second, we only

focused on papers published in English, omitting knowledge available in other languages.

Accordingly, any future research that widens this coverage to include such literature will

enhance our knowledge base. Third, we chose the conceptual lens of marketplace deception to

approach the deepfake phenomenon. However, there could be alternative conceptual and

theoretical frameworks to increase our understanding of deepfakes, such as market orientation

and innovation (Atuahene-Gima, 1996) and ethical marketing (Chonko & Hunt, 1985). As

these alternative perspectives fall outside the scope of the current paper, we leave these for

future research.

Considering we are in the early stages of deepfake research, particularly in the business

domain, a lot remains to be investigated. Here, we make some recommendations for further
 40

research in critical areas. Overall, academics, firms, and consumers may benefit from studies

examining the origins and antecedents of deepfakes. Academic and managerial relevance will

also accrue from research aimed at determining the factors that contribute to the visibility of

deepfakes on online platforms—i.e., how content recommendation and newsfeed ranking

processes interact with deepfake content.

As our review suggests, consumer skills and aptitudes differ in terms of the ability to

detect fake content, as do their attitudes toward artificial content in general. Future research

should delve further into these distinctions to gain a better understanding of consumers’

nuanced actions and attitudes based on deepfakes and make more precise recommendations for

consumer education. Similarly, while it is self-evident that some ethical rules for deepfake-

based marketing are necessary, they are currently missing from the marketing literature. By

offering this primer on this topic, we propose that the criteria for ethical deepfake use are non-

deceptive (i.e., making it clear that the content is artificial and not real), transparent (i.e.,

identifying the source authority and data from which the content originates), fair (i.e., does not

violate the rights of third parties, whether they are a firm, consumer, or group of consumers),

and accountable (i.e., consumers should be able to opt out of fake content if desired).

The motivations of actors creating deepfakes require further scrutiny, including

distinguishing between benevolent and malicious actors. As generally with AI technologies,

identifying and assessing the moral standings of the users of deepfake technologies remains a

vexing challenge, as these technologies can be used for multiple purposes. The legal

implications deserve additional scrutiny. Presently, legal scholars have urged that legislation

be amended to encompass libel, defamation, identity theft, and impersonating government

officials (Langa, 2021; Ray, 2021; Westerlund, 2019). Here, the critical issue to address is

whether and how regulations or enforcements can be made normatively appealing and

acceptable (Chesney & Citron, 2019; Europol, 2022; Farish, 2020).

 41

Finally, given the opportunities presented by deepfakes, additional research on how to

harness the technology for constructive purposes is necessary. These investigations would

benefit from exploring different content modalities. Currently, the focus of deepfakes is on

video content, but there are other content modalities, such as voice, that have potential business

value. For example, synthetic voice creation is already offered as a service by some deep-

learning companies (e.g., Overdub). Thus, one can type a text he or she wants to speak and let

the ML model trained on one’s own voice do the speaking based on a written script. This leads

to interesting implications of hybrid forms of communication, where the author uses a replica

(or a deepfake persona) of themselves to communicate. These and other effects of deepfakes

on business processes in areas like sales and customer service open fruitful avenues for

experimental research.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (2020). Are you ready for the next big wave? - KPMG Global. KPMG.

https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2018/01/are-you-ready-for-the-next-big-wave.html

Anderson, M. (2022, May 28). Google has banned the training of deepfakes in Colab.

Unite.AI. https://www.unite.ai/google-has-banned-the-training-of-deepfakes-in-colab/

Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business

Research, 35(2), 93–103.

Blanton, R., & Carbajal, D. (2019). Not a girl, not yet a woman: A critical case study on

social media, deception, and Lil Miquela. In Handbook of research on deception, fake news,

and misinformation online (pp. 87–103). IGI Global.

Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful

literature review. SAGE.

 42

Botha, J., & Pieterse, H. (2020). Fake news and deepfakes: A dangerous threat for 21st

century information security. ICCWS 2020 15th International Conference on Cyber Warfare

and Security, 57.

Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2015). Deception in the marketplace: The

psychology of deceptive persuasion and consumer self-protection. Routledge.

Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018). The promises, challenges, and futures of media

literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 1–21.

Burt, T., & Horvitz, E. (2020, September 1). New steps to combat disinformation.

Microsoft On the Issues. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-

issues/2020/09/01/disinformation-deepfakes-newsguard-video-authenticator/

Caldwell, M., Andrews, J. T. A., Tanay, T., & Griffin, L. D. (2020). AI-enabled future

crime. Crime Science, 9(1), 14.

CB Information Services. (2021, June 30). Should brands and retailers adopt synthetic

media—The AI for digital content? CB Insights Research.

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/what-is-synthetic-media/

Chadderton, C., & Croft, R. (2006). Who is kidding whom? A study of complicity,

seduction and deception in the marketplace. Social Responsibility Journal, 2(2), 207–215.

Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy,

democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107, 1753–1819.

Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing management: An empirical

examination. Journal of Business Research, 13(4), 339–359.

Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021).

The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

118(9), 1–8.
 43

Confessore, N. (2018, April 4). Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The scandal and the

fallout so far. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html

Cross, C. (2022). Using artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes to deceive victims: The

need to rethink current romance fraud prevention messaging. Crime Prevention and

Community Safety, 24(1), 30–41.

Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception,

defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114–127.

De Paor, S., & Heravi, B. (2020). Information literacy and fake news: How the field of

librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 46(5), 1–8.

Di Domenico, G., & Visentin, M. (2020). Fake news or true lies? Reflections about

problematic contents in marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 409–417.

Digital Humans. (2021). Digital humans: Conversational AI solutions beyond just

chatbots | UneeQ. Digital Humans. https://digitalhumans.com/

Drenten, J., & Brooks, G. (2020). Celebrity 2.0: Lil Miquela and the rise of a virtual star

system. Feminist Media Studies, 20(8), 1319–1323.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y.,

Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar,

A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., … Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial

Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and

agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management,

57, 101994.

Eadicicco, L. (2019). There’s a fake video showing Mark Zuckerberg saying he’s in

control of “billions of people’s stolen data,” as Facebook grapples with doctored videos that
 44

spread misinformation. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/deepfake-video-

mark-zuckerberg-instagram-2019-6

Etienne, H. (2021). The future of online trust (and why Deepfake is advancing it). AI and

Ethics, 1(4), 553–562.

European Parliament. (2021). Tackling deepfakes in European policy.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)690039

Europol. (2022). Europol (2022), Facing reality? Law enforcement and the challenge of

deepfakes, an observatory report from the Europol Innovation Lab, Publications Office of the

European Union, Luxembourg. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-

events/publications/facing-reality-law-enforcement-and-challenge-of-deepfakes

Farish, K. (2020). Do deepfakes pose a golden opportunity? Considering whether English

law should adopt California’s publicity right in the age of the deepfake. Journal of Intellectual

Property Law & Practice, 15(1), 40–48.

Feng, N., Su, Z., Li, D., Zheng, C., & Li, M. (2018). Effects of review spam in a firm-

initiated virtual brand community: Evidence from smartphone customers. Information &

Management, 55(8), 1061–1070.

Fido, D., Rao, J., & Harper, C. A. (2022). Celebrity status, sex, and variation in

psychopathy predicts judgements of and proclivity to generate and distribute deepfake

pornography. Computers in Human Behavior, 129, 107141.

Foley, J. (2022). 14 deepfake examples that terrified and amused the internet. Creative

Bloq. https://www.creativebloq.com/features/deepfake-examples

Gardner, D. M. (1975). Deception in advertising: A conceptual approach: Deception in

advertising needs further definition and procedures for measurement—Gardner’s conceptual

approach offers suggestions for both. Journal of Marketing, 39(1), 40–46.

 45

Giansiracusa, N. (2021). Deepfake deception. In How algorithms create and prevent fake

news (pp. 41–66). Apress, Berkeley, CA.

Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018). Me, my echo

chamber, and I: Introspection on social media polarization. Proceedings of the 2018 World

Wide Web Conference, 823–831.

Graham, N., Hedges, R., Chiu, C., de La Chapelle, F., & van de Graaf, A. (2021, October

12). How can businesses protect themselves from deepfake attacks? Business Going Digital.

https://www.businessgoing.digital/how-can-businesses-protect-themselves-from-deepfake-

attacks/

Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors

of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1).

Hern, A. (2017, April 24). Wikipedia founder to fight fake news with new WikiTribune

site. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/25/wikipedia-founder-

jimmy-wales-to-fight-fake-news-with-new-wikitribune-site

Ho, S. M., Hancock, J. T., Booth, C., & Liu, X. (2016). Computer-mediated deception:

Strategies revealed by language-action cues in spontaneous communication. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 33(2), 393–420.

Hollis, H. (2019). Information literacy and critical thinking: Different concepts, shared

conceptions. Proceedings of the Conceptions of Library and Information Science 10th

International Conference (CoLIS 2019).

Hsu, T. (2019, June 17). These influencers aren’t flesh and blood, yet millions follow

them. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/business/media/miquela-

virtual-influencer.html
 46

Hwang, Y., Ryu, J. Y., & Jeong, S.-H. (2021). Effects of disinformation using deepfake:

The protective effect of media literacy education. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 24(3), 188–193.

Illinois General Assembly. (2008). CIVIL LIABILITIES - (740 ILCS 14/) Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57
Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation

and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295–302.

Johnson, D. G., & Diakopoulos, N. (2021). What to do about deepfakes. Communications

of the ACM, 64(3), 33–35.

Karasavva, V., & Noorbhai, A. (2021). The real threat of deepfake pornography: A

review of Canadian policy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(3), 203–

209.

Karnouskos, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence in digital media: The era of deepfakes.

IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3), 138–147.

Kietzmann, J., Lee, L. W., McCarthy, I. P., & Kietzmann, T. C. (2020). Deepfakes: Trick

or treat? Business Horizons, 63(2), 135–146.

Kirchengast, T. (2020). Deepfakes and image manipulation: Criminalisation and control.

Information & Communications Technology Law, 29(3), 308–323.

Köbis, N. C., Doležalová, B., & Soraperra, I. (2021). Fooled twice: People cannot detect

deepfakes but think they can. Iscience, 24(11), 103364.

Koh, Y., & Wells, G. (2018). The Making of a Computer-Generated Influencer. The Wall

Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-making-of-a-computer-generated-influencer-

11544702401

Langa, J. (2021). Deepfakes, real consequences: Crafting legislation to combat threats

posed by deepfakes. Boston University Law Review, 101, 761.

 47

Lappas, T. (2012). Fake reviews: The malicious perspective. International Conference

on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems, 23–34.

Lee, E.-J., & Shin, S. Y. (2021). Mediated misinformation: Questions answered, more

questions to ask. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 259–276.

Liere-Netheler, K., Gilhaus, L., Vogelsang, K., & Hoppe, U. (2019). A literature review

on application areas of social media analytics. International Conference on Business

Information Systems, 38–49.

Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016). Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and

Yelp review fraud. Management Science, 62(12), 3412–3427.

Ludwig, S., Van Laer, T., De Ruyter, K., & Friedman, M. (2016). Untangling a web of

lies: Exploring automated detection of deception in computer-mediated communication.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(2), 511–541.

Maksutov, A. A., Morozov, V. O., Lavrenov, A. A., & Smirnov, A. S. (2020). Methods

of deepfake detection based on machine learning. 2020 IEEE Conference of Russian Young

Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EIConRus), 408–411.

Malbon, J. (2013). Taking fake online consumer reviews seriously. Journal of Consumer

Policy, 36(2), 139–157.

Martin, K. (2020). What is Voice Cloning? ID R&D. https://www.idrnd.ai/what-is-voice-

cloning/

Mechner, F. (2010). Anatomy of deception: A behavioral contingency analysis.

Behavioural Processes, 84(1), 516–520.

Meel, P., & Vishwakarma, D. K. (2020). Fake news, rumor, information pollution in

social media and web: A contemporary survey of state-of-the-arts, challenges and

opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 153, 112986.

 48

Mihailova, M. (2021). To dally with Dalí: Deepfake (Inter) faces in the art museum.

Convergence, 27(4), 882–898.

Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2021). The creation and detection of deepfakes: A survey. ACM

Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(1), 1–41.

Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E., Halinen, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2016). Customer participation

management: Developing a comprehensive framework and a research agenda. Journal of

Service Management, 27(3), 250–275.

Nieminen, S., & Rapeli, L. (2019). Fighting misperceptions and doubting journalists’

objectivity: A review of fact-checking literature. Political Studies Review, 17(3), 296–309.

Notley, T., & Dezuanni, M. (2019). Advancing children’s news media literacy: Learning

from the practices and experiences of young Australians. Media, Culture & Society, 41(5),

689–707.

Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019). Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to

determine digital news credibility. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 23–42.

O’Donnell, N. (2021). Have we no decency? Section 230 and the liability of social media

companies for deepfake videos. University of Illinois Law Review, 701.

Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2020). Misinformation in

action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when

your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.

https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/misinformation-in-action-fake-news-exposure-

is-linked-to-lower-trust-in-media-higher-trust-in-government-when-your-side-is-in-power/

Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Negative deceptive opinion spam.

Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for

Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 497–501.

Perse, E. M., & Lambe, J. (2016). Media effects and society. Routledge.
 49

Pu, J., Mangaokar, N., Kelly, L., Bhattacharya, P., Sundaram, K., Javed, M., Wang, B.,

& Viswanath, B. (2021). Deepfake videos in the wild: Analysis and detection. Proceedings of

the Web Conference 2021, 981–992.

Ramadhani, K. N., & Munir, R. (2020). A comparative study of deepfake video detection

method. 2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Communications Technology

(ICOIACT), 394–399.

Random Face Generator. (2022). ThisPersonDoesNotExist - Random AI Generated

Photos of Fake Persons. https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en

Ray, A. (2021). Disinformation, deepfakes and democracies: The need for legislative

reform. Iversity of New South Wales Law Journal, 44(3), 983–1013.

Román, S. (2010). Relational consequences of perceived deception in online shopping:

the moderating roles of type of product, consumer’s attitude toward the internet and consumer’s

demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 373–391.

Roozenbeek, J., Maertens, R., McClanahan, W., & van der Linden, S. (2021).

Disentangling item and testing effects in inoculation research on online misinformation:

Solomon revisited. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 340–362.

Rubin, V. L. (2019). Disinformation and misinformation triangle: A conceptual model

for “fake news” epidemic, causal factors and interventions. Journal of Documentation, 75(5),

1013–1034.

Salminen, J., Kandpal, C., Kamel, A. M., Jung, S., & Jansen, B. J. (2022). Creating and

detecting fake reviews of online products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64,

102771.

Salminen, J., Mustak, M., Corporan, J., Jung, S., & Jansen, B. J. (2022). Detecting pain

points from user-generated social media posts using machine learning. Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 10949968221095556.
 50

Schwartz, O. (2018, November 12). You thought fake news was bad? Deep fakes are

where truth goes to die. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/12/deep-fakes-fake-news-truth

Schweisberger, V., Billinson, J., & Chock, T. M. (2014). Facebook, the third-person

effect, and the differential impact hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

19(3), 403–413.

Sharma, K., Qian, F., Jiang, H., Ruchansky, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2019). Combating

fake news: A survey on identification and mitigation techniques. ACM Transactions on

Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 10(3), 1–42.

Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M. M., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Critical analysis of

Big Data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70, 263–286.

State of California Department of Justice. (2018, October 15). California Consumer

Privacy Act (CCPA). State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney

General. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa

Stupp, C. (2019, August 30). Fraudsters Used AI to Mimic CEO’s Voice in Unusual

Cybercrime Case. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fraudsters-use-ai-to-

mimic-ceos-voice-in-unusual-cybercrime-case-11567157402

synthesia. (2020). The Future of (Synthetic) Media. https://www.synthesia.io/post/the-

future-of-synthetic-media

Tahir, R., Batool, B., Jamshed, H., Jameel, M., Anwar, M., Ahmed, F., Zaffar, M. A., &

Zaffar, M. F. (2021). Seeing is believing: Exploring perceptual differences in deepfake videos.

Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16.

Taylor, B. C. (2021). Defending the state from digital Deceit: The reflexive securitization

of deepfake. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 38(1), 1–17.

 51

The New York State Senate. (2019, June 14). NY State Senate Bill S5575B. NY State

Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s5575/amendment/b

Tong, X., Wang, L., Pan, X., & gya Wang, J. (2020). An overview of deepfake: The

sword of damocles in AI. 2020 International Conference on Computer Vision, Image and Deep

Learning (CVIDL), 265–273.

Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an

integrative review. Springer.

Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present

to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428.

Torres, R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018). Epistemology in the era of fake news:

An exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. ACM

SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 49(3), 78–97.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing

evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of

Management, 14(3), 207–222.

van Heerde, H. J., Moorman, C., Moreau, C. P., & Palmatier, R. W. (2021). Reality

check: Infusing ecological value into academic marketing research. Journal of Marketing,

85(2), 1–13.

Van Huynh, N., Hoang, D. T., Nguyen, D. N., & Dutkiewicz, E. (2021). DeepFake: Deep

dueling-based deception strategy to defeat reactive jammers. IEEE Transactions on Wireless

Communications.

Vimalkumar, M., Sharma, S. K., Singh, J. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). ‘Okay google,

what about my privacy?’: User’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital

assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106763.

 52

Vincent, J. (2022). Amazon shows off Alexa feature that mimics the voices of your dead

relatives. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/23/23179748/amazon-alexa-feature-

mimic-voice-dead-relative-ai

Viviani, M., & Pasi, G. (2017). Credibility in social media: Opinions, news, and health

information—a survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge

Discovery, 7(5), e1209.

Vizoso, Á., Vaz-Álvarez, M., & López-García, X. (2021). Fighting deepfakes: Media

and internet giants’ converging and diverging strategies against Hi-Tech misinformation.

Media and Communication, 9(1), 291–300.

Wagner, T. L., & Blewer, A. (2019). “The word real is no longer real”: Deepfakes,

gender, and the challenges of ai-altered video. Open Information Science, 3(1), 32–46.

Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review

on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine,

240, 112552.

Wei, C. (2020, May 21). 2020 NPC Session: A Guide to China’s Civil Code (Updated).

NPC Observer. https://npcobserver.com/2020/05/21/2020-npc-session-a-guide-to-chinas-

civil-code/

Westerlund, M. (2019). The emergence of Deepfake technology: A review. Technology

Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 40–53.

Whittaker, L., Kietzmann, T. C., Kietzmann, J., & Dabirian, A. (2020). “All around me

are synthetic faces”: The mad world of AI-generated media. IT Professional, 22(5), 90–99.

Wu, Y., Ngai, E. W., Wu, P., & Wu, C. (2020). Fake online reviews: Literature review,

synthesis, and directions for future research. Decision Support Systems, 113280.

Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2011). Product-related deception in e-commerce: A theoretical

perspective. Mis Quarterly, 35(1), 169–195.

 53

Xie, G.-X., Chang, H., & Rank-Christman, T. (2020). Contesting dishonesty: When and

why perspective-taking decreases ethical tolerance of marketplace deception. Journal of

Business Ethics, 175, 117–133.

Zakrzewski, C. (2019). Analysis | The Technology 202: Businesses should be watching

out for deepfakes too, experts warn. Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-technology-

202/2019/12/13/the-technology-202-businesses-should-be-watching-out-for-deepfakes-too-

experts-warn/5df279f1602ff125ce5b2fe7/

Zannettou, S., Sirivianos, M., Blackburn, J., & Kourtellis, N. (2019). The web of false

information: Rumors, fake news, hoaxes, clickbait, and various other shenanigans. Journal of

Data and Information Quality, 11(3), 1–37.

Zhao, Y., Yang, S., Narayan, V., & Zhao, Y. (2013). Modeling consumer learning from

online product reviews. Marketing Science, 32(1), 153–169.

Zhao, Z., Wang, P., & Lu, W. (2020). Detecting deepfake video by learning two-level

features with two-stream convolutional neural network. Proceedings of the 2020 6th

International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence, 291–297.

Zotov, S., Dremliuga, R., Borshevnikov, A., & Krivosheeva, K. (2020). DeepFake

Detection Algorithms: A Meta-Analysis. 2020 2nd Symposium on Signal Processing Systems,

43–48.
 54

FIGURES

(a) (b)

Figure 2: On the left (a), screenshot of a deepfake video of Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg purportedly showing him bragging about his power and crediting a hidden
organization—Spectre—for the success of Facebook. On the right (b), a deepfake video of
David Beckham speaking in nine different languages to generate awareness on malaria. These
examples illustrate how deepfakes can be used for both societally good and harmful purposes.
 55

Grouping similar
Marketing relevant codes to answer
texts with codes analytical
questions

Start of
the Study Literature
Database search and Developing
Defining the selection identification analytical Descriptive Further
research aim framework discussion
Selection of reporting
and scope Coding and
critical
synthesizing
phenomenon
Presentation
Initial framework
Search development
Final
WoS: 42 Sample
WoS: 362 ACM: 14
ACM: 177 IEEE: 18
IEEE: 259

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Planning the Review Process Conducting the Review Process Reporting and Dissemination of

Figure 3: Visual illustration of the overall process of this study

 56

40 80

35 70

Google popularity trend

30 60
No. of articles

25 50

20 40

15 30

10 20

5 10

0 0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year

No. of publications Google popularity trend

Figure 4: Research articles and Google popularity trend of deepfakes

 57

Figure 4
 58

Figure 5
 59

Figure 6
 60

Table 3: Analytical framework of this study

Phenomenon Under Study Research Questions Analytical Questions

How do firms face the risks of

deception through deepfakes, for
How might instance, their image, reputation, or
deepfakes contribute economic harm?
to marketplace
deceptions? How do consumers become subject
to deception, for example, lack of
authenticity or manipulation?

What can companies do to protect

themselves and consumers from the
negative implications of deepfakes?
How may they develop technologies
or intervention programs or actions?
Generating insights into
deepfakes vis-à-vis How might firms and
How may consumers avoid the
marketplace deception and consumers avoid the
potential pitfalls of deepfakes?
the potential opportunities malicious effects of
that deepfakes offer. deepfakes? How do existing mechanisms, for
example, governance, quality
assurance, or compliance processes,
contribute towards restricting the
creation or dissemination of
deepfake content?

How can firms deploy and benefit

What opportunities from deepfake technologies in an
do deepfakes offer to ethical manner?
firms and
consumers? How may consumers benefit from
deepfake technologies?
 61

Table 4: Applications of synthetic media for brands and retailers (source: CB Information

Services, 2021)

Type of Image Video Audio Text Others

Synthetic
Media

Face- Facial Human- Copyediting Avatars

swapping reenactment like Business Digital
voices
Pose iteration Content intelligence humans
localization Voice
Model Product Virtual
skins
images Lip syncing description environments
Application Text-to-
Image Background Blog posts Virtual try-
speech
enhancement editing ons
Custom 3D body
sounds scanning
Custom Holograms
music