Australia’s online safety regulator is pushing for a severe financial penalty in a deepfake porn case tied to Mr. Deepfakes, the now-defunct site that hosted large volumes of AI-generated sexual content.
The case focuses on Anthony Rotondo, 53, who divides his time between the Philippines and Australia. He was ordered to remove AI-generated sexualized images of high-profile Australian women from Mr. Deepfakes, but the regulator says his conduct warrants a fine between $400,000 and $450,000.
Why the Proposed Fine Matters
Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has recommended the fine as a deterrent for repeat offenders, The Guardian reported. The size of the proposed penalty signals that regulators are treating non-consensual deepfake porn as a serious form of abuse, not merely as a platform moderation problem.
Rotondo had already been sanctioned $25,000 in December 2023 for defying a court order. According to the source article, he continued targeting more victims in the days after receiving that order, allegedly including minors attending an Australian private school.
The case is especially significant because Rotondo is described as one of the first known Mr. Deepfakes creators verified by police. That makes the enforcement action a test of how far regulators can go against individual creators, rather than only sites or social platforms.
What Happened on Mr. Deepfakes
Mr. Deepfakes shut down forever earlier this month after “a critical service provider” terminated the service “permanently.” Before that shutdown, creators had uploaded tens of thousands of videos, drawing more than 1.5 billion views.
Rotondo was ordered to take down AI-generated sexualized images of high-profile Australian women from the site. Eventually, he gave police his passwords so the images could be deleted.
But the judge said Rotondo appeared resistant to removing deepfakes. The source article also says he continued creating an unknown number of deepfakes, and that Queensland police may pursue further charges involving “a number” of facilities and businesses on the day he allegedly targeted the high school.
The financial incentives around the site are part of the broader concern. The article says toxic Mr. Deepfakes uploaders could earn as much as $1,500 for convincing non-consensual deepfakes of public figures.
The Court Order and the Victims’ Privacy
The case did not only involve the creation and posting of deepfake images. Rotondo also forwarded the court order to 49 email addresses, including media outlets, and that order identified some of the victims whose names were meant to remain confidential.
The Guardian noted that the email had another deepfake attached. Rotondo later argued in court that he did not mean to reveal the victims’ identities by forwarding the email.
“The email I received had more than 80 pages of writing,” Rotondo said. “I didn’t read all the pages. I just forwarded the email.”
Justice Roger Derrington rejected Rotondo’s broader position at the sanctions hearing. ABC reported that the judge said Rotondo “did not show any remorse or contrition for his conduct.”
Rotondo also apparently believed the Australian order could not be enforced because he was a resident of the Philippines. Before the sanctions hearing, the Brisbane Times reported that he told officials: “Get an arrest warrant if you think you are right.”
Australia’s Wider Response to Deepfake Porn
Australia reformed its laws to criminalize such deepfakes after Rotondo’s arrest. That arrest followed an Australian Broadcasting Corporation investigation into “an anonymous online creator” targeting seven Australian public figures online.
Rotondo may avoid the maximum six-year prison sentence under those reforms. However, ABC reported that he has since been charged with five counts of obscene publications and exhibitions, plus one count of obscene publication and exhibition of a child under 16 years.
Inman Grant has described the harm as “lingering and incalculable devastation” for predominantly female victims. She also said it is “shockingly” free and easy to use “thousands of open-source AI apps” to make deepfake porn.
The eSafety commission’s spokesperson told The Guardian that the requested penalty “reflected the seriousness of the breaches” and “the significant impacts on the women targeted.” The spokesperson added: “The penalty will deter others from engaging in such harmful conduct.”
Pressure Is Building Beyond One Creator
The collapse of Mr. Deepfakes has not ended scrutiny of the people connected to it. Denmark has sought to extradite David Do, a Canadian pharmacist suspected of playing a key role in operating Mr. Deepfakes.
If convicted, Do could face up to six months in prison under Danish defamation laws and potentially additional charges elsewhere. That separate development suggests authorities are looking beyond uploaders and toward the people who may have helped operate the infrastructure behind the site.
The source article also notes a broader shift in how governments are approaching non-consensual deepfake porn. Their focus now includes creators, sites that host and sell the material, and social media platforms that fail to catch and remove harmful content.
In the US, the Take It Down Act threatens heavy fines and prison time for platforms that fail to remove reported images. Wired reported that platforms risk roughly $50,000 in penalties per violation if deepfakes are not removed within 48 hours of a report.
For Australia, the Rotondo case has become a high-profile example of how regulators may respond when court orders, victim privacy, platform shutdowns, and AI-generated sexual abuse collide. The requested fine is meant to send a clear message: ignoring removal orders and continuing the conduct can carry consequences that reach far beyond a single deleted account.