Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{191410,
        author = {Dr. Manisha Jaydatt Gajre},
        title = {The Face of Fraud: A Comparative Analysis of Deepfake Regulations in the EU AI Act vs. India's IT RulesThe Face of Fraud: A Comparative Analysis of Deepfake Regulations in the EU AI Act vs. India's IT Rules},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {7},
        pages = {8100-8103},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=191410},
        abstract = {We are living in an era where "seeing is believing" is no longer a safe maxim. Deepfake technology has graduated from the fringes of internet subculture to become a sophisticated engine for financial fraud, identity theft, and democratic disruption. As of 2026, legal systems around the globe are scrambling to define the boundaries of "digital personhood" and assign liability for algorithmic mimicry. This paper offers a narrative analysis of two distinct legal philosophies: the European Union’s attempt to regulate the tool (the "Product Safety" model) versus India’s attempt to regulate the platform (the "Intermediary Liability" model). The argument presented here is that while Europe offers superior preventative measures through transparency mandates, India provides a more agile "kill switch" for content removal. However, both systems currently leave a dangerous "liability gap" when it comes to financial fraud, leaving the individual victim to foot the bill for AI-driven crimes.},
        keywords = {},
        month = {January},
        }