PVV Admits to Using AI to Make Syrian Brothers Look ‘Grimmer’ in Radical Right Campaign

A Dutch court ordered the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) to pay damages to two Syrian brothers after the party used artificial intelligence to make their images appear more menacing in a political campaign, according to reports from De Standaard and De Morgen.

The ruling follows a legal challenge regarding the manipulation of photographs to create a “grimmer” depiction of the individuals for political purposes. The court found that the use of AI to alter the physical appearance and expression of the brothers violated their rights, necessitating financial compensation.

Why did the court order the PVV to pay damages?

The court determined that the PVV exceeded the boundaries of political expression by intentionally altering the likeness of the Syrian brothers to suggest a more threatening persona. According to De Morgen, the party used AI tools to modify the images, making the subjects appear more sinister than they were in the original photographs.

Under Dutch law, the right to one’s image (portretrecht) allows individuals to oppose the publication of their likeness if they have a legitimate interest, such as the protection of their reputation. The court ruled that the AI-driven modifications created a misleading and damaging representation of the brothers, which outweighed the party’s claim to political freedom of speech.

The decision mandates that the PVV provide financial restitution to the affected individuals. While the specific amount of the damages was not detailed in the initial reports, the ruling establishes a legal precedent regarding the manipulation of human likenesses in political advertising.

How was AI used to alter the images?

Reports from De Standaard describe the process as “knutselen,” or tinkering, with AI to achieve a specific aesthetic effect. The PVV utilized generative AI tools to adjust facial expressions and lighting, transforming neutral or positive images into versions that appeared more aggressive or “grim.”

This technique differs from standard photo editing, such as cropping or color correction. By using AI to synthesize new facial characteristics or expressions, the party created a version of the brothers that did not exist in reality. The court viewed this synthetic alteration as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the character of the individuals involved.

What are the legal implications for AI in political ads?

This case highlights a growing tension between the capabilities of generative AI and existing personality rights. The ruling suggests that political parties cannot use AI to fabricate or distort a person’s appearance to serve a narrative without facing legal liability.

Legal analysts note that this case aligns with broader European efforts to regulate AI-generated content. The EU AI Act, for instance, emphasizes transparency and the prevention of deceptive AI practices. By penalizing the PVV, the Dutch court has signaled that “synthetic” defamation—where AI is used to change the perceived nature of a person—is actionable under current law.

The case provides a contrast in how political communication is handled. While political satire often allows for exaggeration, the court found that the AI manipulation of real individuals’ faces crossed the line from commentary into a violation of personal rights.

How does this compare to other AI political controversies?

The PVV case is part of a wider trend of AI-driven disinformation in European politics. Unlike “deepfakes,” which often create entirely fake videos or audio, this case involved the modification of existing, authentic photos to alter the emotional tone and perceived threat level of the subjects.

Other recent political AI controversies have focused on:

• The creation of entirely synthetic “robocalls” to suppress voter turnout.
• The use of AI-generated imagery to place political opponents in compromising, fictional settings.
• The deployment of AI bots to amplify specific political narratives on social media.

The Dutch ruling is distinct because it focuses specifically on the “grimness” or perceived character of the subjects, rather than the creation of a fake event. It establishes that altering the perceived “essence” of a person via AI is a breach of the right to image.

The PVV has not issued a public statement regarding the payment of damages as of June 13, 2026.