AI deepfake ad draws legal challenge in Spain’s election

By James Calloway

Spain’s conservative People’s Party (PP), the main opposition party, drew nearly 2 million views by Friday with an AI-generated deepfake video launched on social media this week. Leire Díez, a former Socialist member whose likeness the ad used, filed a legal challenge seeking its immediate removal.

The deepfake, meaning synthetic media that imitates a real person’s face or voice, adds a disclosure test to a deeply polarized election campaign. Spain holds its general election on November 29, and most polls suggest the PP will win but need support from the far-right Vox party to form a government.

The dispute now tests where political satire ends and political deception begins. A court challenge, the PP’s response, and reporting from US midterm advertising now define the debate before voters go to the polls.

What did the deepfake video claim?

The PP video used AI to manipulate likenesses of several people linked to Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist party. It appeared to show them admitting to acts such as soliciting prostitutes and taking kickbacks.

• Begoña Gómez, Sánchez’s wife, appears to discuss receiving a university post because of her husband’s job.
• José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the former Socialist president, appears to discuss hiding jewellery in a safe.

Both scenes referred to ongoing investigations in which Gómez and Zapatero have denied any wrongdoing. The ad carried a note at the bottom, in tiny, nearly transparent type, that it had been created with AI.

The published description identifies no model, vendor, production method, or independent forensic examination of the media. That omission leaves the technical quality of the synthetic performances unestablished, rather than showing that either approach worked or failed.

Takeaway: The video visibly disclosed its use of AI, but built its staged admissions around real people and live investigations.

Why did it spark outrage?

The Socialist party responded quickly. Óscar López, Spain’s digital transformation minister, told broadcaster TVE on Friday: “It’s telling people a colossal lie, and for a party to do it on its official accounts seems intolerable to me.”

López also focused on the label’s limits. “It’s very easy for anyone who isn’t used to AI to confuse that video with reality,” he said. “And call me crazy, but that seems extremely serious to me.”

José Javier Olivas, an associate professor who researches populism, conspiracy theories and AI biases at Spain’s National University for Distance Education, offered a broader objection. “It’s truly regrettable that the official account of a party that claims to want to govern and revitalise democracy is using AI-generated deepfakes in its campaign.”

Olivas said both mainstream parties had sought votes by stoking emotions and attacking rivals’ morality. He nevertheless called the video a “red line” and said: “You’re using the images of other people, putting words in their mouths that they’re not saying, [and] this qualifies for disinformation.”

The controversy arrives as officials across much of the world try to curb political disinformation, meaning deliberately false or misleading information. The technical label answers how the video was made; it does not answer whether viewers would treat its invented statements as evidence.

Takeaway: The central objection goes beyond whether the ad hides its AI use: a faint disclosure may not stop synthetic statements from functioning as real accusations.

Is the video illegal?

On Friday, Díez filed the legal challenge against the PP, calling on it to remove the campaign advertisement. Her court complaint reportedly accused the party of defamation, meaning claims that damage a person’s reputation, and digital identity theft.

The complaint said the video used Díez’s likeness to imply that she worked to undermine judicial and law enforcement to help the Socialists. That allegation remains a claim in the filing; the published account provides no court finding on it.

A majority of the nine legal experts consulted by El País concluded that the PP’s conduct was not illegal because the video carried an AI label and its overall tone amounted to political satire, meaning exaggerated commentary used to criticize public figures. That assessment depended on both the disclosure and the satirical framing.

Íñigo Navarro, a former dean of the law faculty at Madrid’s Comillas Pontifical University, told the paper: “Given the context, everyone knows those people didn’t say those things.” His assessment assumed viewers understood the video’s satirical frame.

Juan Antonio Lascuraín, a professor of criminal law at the Autonomous University of Madrid, separated law from ethics. “It’s quite another matter to ask whether it’s appropriate, exemplary or ethically and politically correct.”

The consultation does not constitute a ruling, and the account reports no judicial decision on Díez’s challenge. The legal question and the political question therefore remain separate: what a court would permit, and what an election campaign should do.

Takeaway: The legal experts’ consultation favored legality, but it did not resolve whether the ad was fair or acceptable in a campaign.

How does the PP defend the ad?

The PP has brushed off the criticism. Borja Sémper, of the party, told reporters: “If there had been malicious intent to make people believe that the characters who appear there are real, then we’d have a problem.”

He continued: “But everyone can see that this is a way of using digital tools to highlight the hypocrisy in which the Socialist party operates.” His defense rests on a hypothetical absence of intent, and his quoted response did not directly answer the complaint’s defamation and digital-identity-theft allegations.

The ad’s AI label and satirical framing are consistent with Sémper’s account that it was not meant for literal belief. They do not establish how many viewers interpreted it, and the 2 million-view figure measures exposure rather than persuasion or intent.

Takeaway: The party calls the video satire; its opponents call it deception. The unresolved issue is what a disclosed AI label changes in practice.

What does the US comparison show?

AI-generated or enhanced political advertising has become a talking point ahead of next month’s 2026 US midterm elections, or races held between presidential election cycles. A recent report by a research group based at Wesleyan University in Connecticut identified more than 200 such ads, with the vast majority tied to Republicans.

Erika Franklin Fowler, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said: “AI is making its way into the 2026 midterms in a big way this year.” She added: “For comparison, we identified less than $50,000 in spending on AI-generated ads in the 2024 cycle. Much of the AI use is not disclosed through any type of disclaimer.”

The contrast with Spain is direct but limited. The PP ad at least carried an AI label, although its type was tiny and nearly transparent; Fowler said much US political AI use carried no disclaimer of any kind.

The figures count ads and spending, not voters reached, belief or electoral effect. The report details do not establish how much the 2026 ads cost or whether nondisclosure materially changes political behavior.

Takeaway: Political AI is moving from a specialist technique to a campaign tool, while disclosure practices remain inconsistent.

What remains unresolved before November 29?

The immediate legal and practical questions are concrete. The account reports no court ruling, no interim order, and no decision by the PP or a social media platform to remove or amend the video.

Most polls suggest the PP will win but will need Vox support to form a government. The account names no pollsters, dates, samples or margins, so that forecast remains directional rather than a precise measure of voter intent.

A party expected to lead the next government has used synthetic media against political opponents. Yet the available reporting does not establish the ad’s effectiveness or voters’ response.

Before November 29, the concrete tests are the court’s response to Díez’s challenge and whether the PP changes or retains the ad after nearly 2 million views. Those events would add evidence to a dispute that politicians, lawyers and researchers have framed differently: as satire, disinformation, or simply a new kind of campaign pressure.

Takeaway: Spain enters its final campaign stretch without a settled rule for synthetic political media, even as the party likely to lead the vote defends the method.