How to Detect Deepfake Insurance Claims: A Complete Guide

Insurance fraud costs American consumers at least US$308.6 billion every year, according to the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud. But a new category of fraud is emerging that makes traditional detection methods obsolete: deepfake-manipulated claims evidence.

Deepfakes — AI-generated or AI-manipulated images, videos, and audio — are no longer the stuff of science fiction. According to Sumsub’s 2024 Identity Fraud Report, global identity fraud rates have surged from 1.10% in 2021 to 2.50% in 2024, with AI-driven deepfakes identified as the dominant emerging attack vector. For insurers, this means that the photos, videos, and documents submitted with claims can no longer be taken at face value.

This guide provides a practical, step-by-step framework for claims professionals to identify deepfake media in insurance claims — from manual red flags to AI-powered detection tools.

Why Deepfakes Are an Insurance Problem

Insurance has always relied on documentary evidence: photos of vehicle damage, videos of property losses, medical imaging, recorded statements. Deepfake technology now makes it possible to fabricate or manipulate any of these at a level of sophistication that defeats casual human inspection.

The threat is not hypothetical. In February 2024, Hong Kong police revealed that a finance worker at a multinational firm was tricked into transferring US$25.6 million after attending a video conference where every participant — including the company’s CFO — was a deepfake recreation (CNN, February 2024). If deepfakes can fool a trained professional in a live video call, they can certainly fool a claims adjuster reviewing submitted photos.

For insurers, deepfake-enabled fraud can take several forms:

Fabricated damage photos — AI-generated images of vehicle damage, property destruction, or personal injury that never occurred
Manipulated evidence — Real photos altered to exaggerate the extent of damage or change the date and location metadata
Recycled claims media — Genuine damage photos from one incident resubmitted across multiple claims or by different claimants
Synthetic identity documents — AI-generated IDs, medical records, or police reports used to support fraudulent claims
Voice cloning — Synthetic audio used to impersonate policyholders during phone-based claims reporting or verification calls

Step 1: Visual Inspection — What the Human Eye Can Catch

While advanced deepfakes can be virtually indistinguishable from genuine media at a glance, many insurance fraud attempts use lower-quality manipulations that trained eyes can spot. Here’s what to look for.

In Images

Lighting inconsistencies. Check whether shadows fall consistently across the image. AI-generated images often struggle with complex lighting, producing shadows that point in different directions or objects that appear uniformly lit when natural light should create variation.

Edge artifacts. Look closely at the boundaries between objects — particularly where damaged areas meet undamaged surfaces. Manipulated images may show unnatural blurring, color bleeding, or pixel-level irregularities along these edges.

Texture anomalies. Zoom into surfaces. AI-generated textures can appear unnaturally smooth or exhibit repetitive patterns. Pay particular attention to surfaces like brick walls, roof tiles, and vehicle panels where natural variation should be visible.

Inconsistent resolution. When part of an image has been inserted or altered, the manipulated region may have a slightly different resolution, sharpness, or compression quality compared to the surrounding area.

Missing or wrong reflections. Reflective surfaces (windows, puddles, glossy paint) should show consistent reflections of their environment. AI-generated content sometimes produces reflections that don’t match the scene.

In Video

Temporal inconsistencies. Frame-by-frame review may reveal flickering, sudden changes in lighting or color, or objects that briefly disappear and reappear. Legitimate video maintains consistency between frames.

Unnatural motion. If people appear in the video, watch for subtle issues: lip movements that don’t match speech, blinking patterns that seem mechanical, or facial expressions that transition too abruptly.

Audio-visual mismatch. Verify that ambient sounds match the visual environment. A video purporting to show storm damage should have corresponding wind or rain audio, not the quiet hum of an indoor environment.

In Documents

Font and formatting irregularities. AI-generated documents may use slightly wrong fonts, inconsistent spacing, or formatting that differs from genuine institutional documents.

Institutional markers. Check letterheads, stamps, signatures, and reference numbers against known genuine examples. Contact the issuing institution if in doubt.

Step 2: Metadata Analysis — What the File Tells You

Every digital file carries metadata — embedded information about when, where, and how it was created. This is often more revealing than the visual content itself.

EXIF Data (Images)

Digital photos typically contain EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data including:

Camera make and model — Is it consistent with a smartphone photo (as claimed) or does it suggest studio equipment or rendering software?
Date and time — Does the creation date align with the reported incident date? Be aware that EXIF dates can be edited, but inconsistencies between creation date, modification date, and file system dates can reveal tampering.
GPS coordinates — If present, do they match the claimed location of the incident? Many smartphone photos embed location data automatically.
Software tags — Check the “Software” field. References to image editing tools (Adobe Photoshop, GIMP) or AI generation platforms are red flags.

File Structure Analysis

Compression artifacts — Images that have been saved multiple times through editing software accumulate compression artifacts. A photo claiming to be an original from a phone camera shouldn’t show signs of multiple re-compressions.
Thumbnail inconsistencies — Image files often contain an embedded thumbnail. If the image has been edited, the thumbnail may still show the original, unaltered version.
Steganographic markers — Some AI generation tools embed invisible watermarks or markers in their output. Detection tools can identify these signatures.

Reverse Image Search

Run submitted photos through reverse image search engines. This can reveal:

The same image used in previous claims by different claimants
Stock photos or images scraped from social media being passed off as original evidence
The original, unmanipulated version of an altered photo

Step 3: Contextual Verification — Does the Story Hold Up?

Beyond the media itself, cross-referencing the claim against external data sources can expose inconsistencies that point to fraud.

Weather data. If a claim involves storm, flood, or hail damage, verify against historical weather records for the reported location and date. Publicly available data from the Bureau of Meteorology (Australia), NOAA (US), or equivalent agencies can confirm or contradict the claim.

Event records. For auto accidents, check against police reports and traffic incident databases. For property damage, verify against local emergency service records.

Timeline analysis. Compare the sequence of events: When was the policy purchased? When did the incident allegedly occur? When were photos taken? When was the claim filed? Suspiciously short intervals between policy inception and claims can indicate premeditation.

Cross-claim patterns. Search your claims database for the same claimant, address, vehicle, or repair shop appearing across multiple claims. Pattern analysis can reveal fraud rings that deepfake detection alone might miss.

Step 4: AI-Powered Detection — When Human Review Isn’t Enough

Manual inspection and metadata analysis catch many attempts, but sophisticated deepfakes require technological countermeasures. AI-powered detection tools analyze media at a level of detail impossible for human reviewers.

How AI Detection Works

Modern deepfake detection systems typically employ multiple layers of analysis:

Pixel-level forensics. AI models examine images at the pixel level, identifying statistical patterns left behind by generative AI models. These patterns — invisible to the human eye — act as fingerprints of manipulation.

Frequency domain analysis. By transforming images into the frequency domain (using techniques like Fourier transforms), detection systems can identify spectral anomalies characteristic of AI-generated content. Real photographs and AI-generated images have subtly different frequency signatures.

Semantic consistency checking. Advanced systems check whether the content of an image is internally consistent — for example, whether damage patterns on a vehicle are physically plausible, or whether claimed water damage is consistent with the visible water line.

Provenance verification. Some detection approaches verify the chain of custody of media files, checking for signs of editing, re-encoding, or injection (where synthetic media is inserted directly into a processing pipeline, bypassing the camera entirely).

What to Look for in a Detection Tool

Not all deepfake detection tools are created equal, particularly for insurance applications. Key considerations include:

Production accuracy vs lab accuracy. Many tools report accuracy figures based on clean, high-quality test data. Real-world insurance claims media is compressed, low-resolution, and captured in unpredictable conditions. Ask vendors about their accuracy on real-world claims data, not just benchmarks.
Forensic evidence output. For claims that proceed to investigation or litigation, you need more than a binary “real/fake” score. Look for tools that produce detailed forensic reports with visual heatmaps showing exactly where and how manipulation was detected.
Insurance workflow integration. Detection tools should integrate with your existing claims management platform (Guidewire, Duck Creek, Majesco, or equivalent), not require manual uploads to a separate system.
Multi-media capability. Insurance claims involve photos, videos, documents, and increasingly audio. Choose a platform that handles all media types, not just images.

At deetech, we built our detection platform specifically for insurance claims media — accounting for the compression, diverse conditions, and evidentiary requirements that generic detection tools overlook.

Step 5: Establish an Escalation Protocol

Detection is only useful if it feeds into a structured response process. Establish clear protocols for your team:

Triage Framework

Green — No indicators of manipulation. Process the claim normally. Log the media verification result for audit purposes.

Amber — Suspicious indicators detected. Escalate to a senior adjuster or specialist team for further review. Request additional evidence from the claimant (different angles, timestamps, supporting documentation). Run AI detection analysis if not already performed.

Red — High confidence of manipulation. Escalate immediately to your Special Investigation Unit (SIU). Preserve all original media files and metadata. Do not notify the claimant of the suspicion until the investigation is complete. Document the chain of evidence for potential legal proceedings.

Documentation Requirements

For every claim where media verification is performed, record:

The tools and methods used for verification
The specific findings (visual anomalies, metadata inconsistencies, AI detection results)
The date and time of the review
The reviewer’s identity
The escalation decision and rationale

This documentation is essential for regulatory compliance and potential litigation.

Building a Culture of Verification

Deepfake detection isn’t a one-off technology purchase — it requires embedding verification into the claims culture.

Training. Ensure all claims staff receive regular training on deepfake indicators and verification procedures. The threat landscape evolves rapidly; training should be updated at least annually.

Technology investment. Manual review cannot keep pace with the sophistication and volume of AI-generated fraud. AI-powered detection tools are increasingly necessary as a standard part of the claims workflow.

Collaboration. Share intelligence about fraud patterns with industry bodies such as the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) in the US, the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) in the UK, or the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA). Collective intelligence makes the entire industry more resilient.

Continuous improvement. Track your detection rates, false positive rates, and the types of fraud you encounter. Use this data to refine your processes and inform technology investments.

The Bottom Line

The question is no longer whether deepfakes will be used in insurance fraud — they already are. The question is whether your organization is equipped to detect them.

A layered approach combining human expertise, metadata analysis, contextual verification, and AI-powered detection gives claims teams the best chance of catching manipulated evidence before it results in fraudulent payouts.

The technology exists. The framework is clear. The only remaining variable is execution.

deetech provides AI-powered deepfake detection built specifically for insurance claims. Our platform delivers forensic-grade analysis with production-ready accuracy on real-world claims media. Request a demo to see how it works with your claims workflow.

Sources cited in this article: