Judge distinguishes in dismissal over deepfakes
An employer wrongly summarily dismissed an employee, but the employment contract could still be terminated.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Limburg District Court overturned the summary dismissal of an employee after he created and distributed pornographic deepfake images of colleagues without their permission. At the same time, the judge ruled that the employment contract could be terminated because of the seriousness of the conduct.
The case concerned digital images in which the faces of real people had been used without their permission. Those involved included former colleagues and at least one person who later worked with the employee again.
According to the ruling, the employer suspended the employee and then summarily dismissed him. The subdistrict court judge found that this form of dismissal was legally invalid because it had not been sufficiently established that the employee had continued making and distributing new images after a certain point.
According to the judge, summary dismissal was not justified in this case. The judge ruled that the employer could have kept the employee suspended and then ended the employment relationship through ordinary termination proceedings. According to the ruling, the employee retained the right to wages until the date on which the employment contract was terminated.
That ruling does not mean that the judge viewed the creation and distribution of the images lightly. The judgment states that the facts were seriously culpable and that the conduct was entirely the employee’s responsibility. Creating sexual deepfakes without permission is also covered by a criminal provision in the Dutch Criminal Code.
The judgment therefore leaves two legal questions side by side. The way an employer ends a contract must meet employment-law requirements, while the conduct itself may, in the judge’s view, be serious enough to make further cooperation impossible.
The case is also relevant to organisations dealing with generative imaging technology. An internal suspicion, digital traces or unrest in the workplace may prompt an investigation and measures, but an employer must still follow the correct dismissal procedure.
The judgment does not say that deepfakes are permitted in the workplace. It does make clear that a judge separately considers the seriousness of the conduct, whether new facts can be proven and the employment-law route chosen. The case thus underlines that technological harm and procedural diligence must be assessed together.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The judge found that the summary dismissal was legally invalid.
- The employment contract could still be terminated.
- The judge classified the conduct as seriously culpable.
Left
Arguments Employers must protect employees from digital intimidation and sexual image manipulation and must be able to intervene quickly when colleagues feel unsafe.
Values Equality, protection against abuse of power and a safe workplace.
Consequences Broader protection protocols and faster intervention, with attention to victims’ position.
Centre
Arguments The employer must be able to act, but evidence, the right to be heard and the right dismissal route remain necessary.
Values Legal certainty, proportionality and workable rules.
Consequences Organisations will need to set out internal procedures for AI misuse and employment law more clearly.
Right
Arguments Creating and distributing such images is a serious violation of property, reputation and order in the workplace; employers must be able to respond firmly.
Values Individual responsibility, property rights and enforcement.
Consequences A stricter organisational response and potentially further criminal-law enforcement, provided the evidence and procedure are in order.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The judgment and the legal distinction between overturning the summary dismissal and terminating the contract can be found directly in the ruling. The text contains no names or explicit details about victims.
- confirmed The court overturned the summary dismissal. — The ruling states that the dismissal was legally invalid. source
- confirmed The employment contract was terminated because of the seriousness of the conduct. — Confirmed in the ruling and legal summaries. source
- confirmed Creating sexual deepfakes without permission is criminalised under Article 254ba of the Dutch Criminal Code. — The court refers to this in the ruling. source
Editor's note
The judgment was primarily checked against the published ruling. The names of non-public individuals involved and explicit details have deliberately been omitted.Sources
- Maken van pornografische deepfake-afbeeldingen met gebruikmaking van beelden van ex-collega's en een huidige collega — Rechtbank Limburg
- Pornografische deepfakes van collega's: ontbinding arbeidsovereenkomst — Recht.nl
- Maken en verspreiden van pornografische deepfakes van collega's leidt tot ontbinding arbeidsovereenkomst — ITenRecht
More on this in Dutch media
- AD — „deepfake kunstmatige intelligentie”
- RTL Nieuws — „deepfake kunstmatige intelligentie”
- FD — „deepfake kunstmatige intelligentie”