[norikki]

>Invasion of privacy doesn't require an actual invasion into a person's private life. It includes publicizing a person in a false light [...]

Could you explain that a bit more? I would be very shocked if something as subjective and vague as "publicizing a person in a false light" would be an invasion of privacy worthy of first amendment exemption.

[gamblor956]

It's basically defamation lite, for when the statement isn't actually false (as in a deep fake), or the falsity is clearly expressed, but publication of the statement still portrays the person in a false context that causes quantifiable harm to their reputation.

Generally, any person who pursues a defamation claim over a deepfake would likely include this claim if they can't meet the burden for defamation.

(Please don't try to pick that apart as I'm only trying to provide a very-high-level-in-a-nutshell general overview.)