Malaysia's battle against artificial intelligence-generated misinformation has intensified dramatically, with authorities removing more than 11,600 deepfake videos and images since the beginning of 2024. Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching disclosed the scale of the problem during parliamentary proceedings, revealing that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Authority has been systematically working with social media companies to purge harmful content from their platforms following formal takedown requests.
The trajectory of complaints paints an alarming picture of how rapidly deepfake technology has become weaponised for deceptive purposes in Malaysia. Starting with 917 reported cases in 2024, the number of complaints has climbed to 3,612 in 2025, and reached 7,967 by mid-June this year—representing an increase of nearly nine times in just eighteen months. This explosive growth underscores how the technology has proliferated beyond specialist circles into mainstream criminal and malicious activity, affecting ordinary Malaysians through their social media feeds.
To address this escalating threat, the government has introduced a regulatory framework through the Risk Mitigation Code established under the Online Safety Act 2025. This legislation represents a significant shift in how Malaysia approaches digital platform governance, moving beyond reactive measures to impose preventive obligations on licensed social media companies. The RMC specifically mandates that these platforms implement safeguards designed to detect and limit the spread of artificially generated content before it reaches users at scale.
The MCMC's approach combines enforcement with collaborative engagement. Officials have been systematically assessing how each licensed platform provider is meeting its obligations under the new framework, examining the technical capabilities and policy mechanisms these companies have put in place. This hands-on regulatory oversight reflects recognition that technological solutions alone cannot address the problem—platforms must be held accountable for maintaining the integrity of their systems against AI-generated manipulation.
Beyond content removal, the authorities are providing critical support to law enforcement investigations. The MCMC supplies technical assistance that includes profiling suspect accounts, conducting digital forensic analysis to trace the origin and distribution of deepfakes, and maintaining continuous surveillance of social media channels for new AI-generated material. This approach acknowledges that combating deepfakes requires coordination across multiple government agencies and technical expertise in digital investigation methods that differ fundamentally from traditional crime scene analysis.
The surge in deepfake complaints reflects broader concerns about how artificial intelligence can undermine public discourse and democratic processes in Southeast Asia. Deepfakes have been weaponised to spread false information about public figures, manipulate perceptions during elections, and compromise the credibility of legitimate video evidence. For Malaysia, where political narratives frequently dominate the information landscape and social media serves as a primary news source for many citizens, the proliferation of synthetic media poses genuine risks to informed democratic participation.
The government has simultaneously tackled a related menace: fraudulent advertising on social media platforms. Licensed providers are now required to verify the identities of anyone purchasing advertisements through their channels, utilising agencies such as the Companies Commission of Malaysia to confirm legitimacy. This measure directly addresses the practice of scammers operating fake accounts to promote schemes and harvest personal information from unsuspecting users. Identity verification creates an additional friction point that makes it harder for bad actors to establish the fake credentials necessary for deceptive marketing campaigns.
Enforcement teeth have been built into the framework through penalties that escalate significantly for non-compliance. Platforms found to have breached their Risk Mitigation Code obligations face potential prosecution in court, with convictions resulting in fines reaching RM1 million. Beyond the initial penalty, courts can impose additional financial sanctions of up to RM10 million per violation, creating a substantial financial deterrent that forces platforms to prioritise compliance with Malaysian regulatory requirements.
The legislative approach reflects lessons learned from other democracies struggling with deepfake proliferation. Rather than attempting to ban the technology outright—a practically impossible and legally fraught approach—Malaysia has chosen to establish clear responsibility structures where platform operators must demonstrate active mitigation of harms. This model places the compliance burden squarely on companies with the greatest capacity to detect and remove problematic content at scale, while reserving government enforcement for those platforms demonstrating negligence or bad faith.
For Malaysian users, these developments represent acknowledgement that the regulatory environment is evolving to match technological capabilities. The dramatic increase in complaint volumes suggests either greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms, or genuine increases in deepfake prevalence—or more likely, both factors combined. As deepfake generation tools become more accessible and the quality of synthetic media improves, the challenge for regulators intensifies proportionally.
The regional implications extend beyond Malaysia's borders. Other Southeast Asian nations are monitoring how this regulatory model functions and whether the financial penalties prove sufficient to incentivise genuine platform compliance. The framework's success or failure in Malaysia could influence policy approaches across the region, particularly among nations grappling with election cycles and heightened information warfare concerns. The scale of enforcement resources required to sustain this regulatory model also sets a template for what technological governance demands from government capacity in the digital age.
