An apparent endorsement inside an advertisement
Fictional example: Eva sees an advertisement in which a well-known presenter apparently recommends a health product. The clip looks like an extract from a television programme. Eva searches the broadcaster’s own site and independently checks whether that endorsement was published there. She initially finds no confirmation and does not buy on the strength of the clip. The example leaves its production method unresolved. For her decision, it is enough that the supposed endorsement has not yet been established.
Look for the source outside the post
Note the claimed programme name, publication date and a distinctive sentence. Use these to search the broadcaster, organisation or person’s independently located official presence. A logo displayed in the video can be copied. Many reposts of the same file are not independent confirmations. If you find a longer original, compare the relevant passage. A missing search result does not prove that the clip is synthetic, however; its status may simply remain uncertain. Keep that distinction when explaining what you found to others.
Authentic footage can still mislead
An old recording can be presented as a current event. An edit can remove a qualification, a translation can change a statement and a new caption can assert a different meaning. Ask not only whether AI was used, but whether the recording supports the particular claim. Compare the date, occasion and words before and after the extract. A genuine person can also be mistaken or promoting something. Establishing that the face is authentic does not establish scientific evidence for a product’s advertised benefits.
Understand the limits of anomalies and detectors
Unnatural movement, mismatched transitions or odd sound can justify further checking. Their absence does not automatically make a video genuine. Compression and poor recording quality can also create strange effects. Technical detection tools have limitations: NIST examines different approaches and stresses that none provides a complete solution alone. A percentage without information about the tested material and error rates is not a final verdict. Do not casually upload private recordings to unfamiliar checking websites simply because they promise to identify AI.
Evaluate the requested action separately
BACS and the FTC warn about fake endorsements involving familiar public figures. Look closely when a clip pushes a payment, registration, access-code disclosure or health decision. Use official provider information and independent knowledgeable sources. Even a genuine endorsement would not replace a personal medical assessment. Avoid sharing unverified clips as established facts, and use the platform’s reporting function where you suspect deception. Describe what you observed without declaring an unproven manipulation conclusively established. You can withhold a purchase while the origin remains unresolved.
Your checklist
The checkboxes are for your own reference. No entries are sent to us. To keep a copy, print the page or save it as a PDF using your browser menu.
Common questions
Can I reliably spot AI from hands or lip movements?
No. Such features can be clues, but may be absent in manipulated footage or arise for other reasons. Check the source and context as well.
Does an official logo prove where the clip came from?
No. A logo can be added or copied from genuine footage. Find the publication independently with the organisation supposedly responsible for it.
What if I cannot establish authenticity?
State the uncertainty. You do not need a final technical verdict to decline an unsupported sales request or seek more evidence before sharing the clip.
Sources and further information
Primary sources from public authorities, consumer organisations and providers. A source may be in another language; follow the guidance that applies to your service and where you live.
- BACS: Aktuelle Betrugsvarianten mit KI-generierten Bildern und Videos, July 2026Source review date:
- NIST: Reducing Risks Posed by Synthetic ContentSource review date:
- FTC: Did a celebrity really endorse THAT? Maybe notSource review date:
