Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple, expressed concern over the surge in deepfake videos impersonating him to promote fraudulent schemes and false giveaways.
In a Nov. 13 post on social media platform X, Garlinghouse pointed out an “uptick in deepfake scam videos overlaying new words with old video footage from Ripple’s events” on YouTube.
His reaction stemmed from a recent incident where a deepfake video targeted XRP holders. The video showcases Garlinghouse endorsing a fictitious 100M XRP giveaway, promising to double users’ holdings. The misleading video urged deposits ranging from 1,000 to 500,000 XRP for the supposed asset doubling.
Garlinghouse cautioned the XRP community to exercise vigilance, advising them to verify information only through official Ripple channels. He further called out YouTube, questioning its oversight in the spread of these deceptive videos.
Garlinghouse’s history with YouTube
In 2020, Garlinghouse and Ripple filed legal actions against YouTube, alleging that the video-streaming giant allowed scammers to promote fraudulent schemes that damaged their brand and reputation.
However, the case was settled in 2021 after the parties resolved “to work together to prevent, detect, and take down these scams.”
Meanwhile, Garlinghouse recent outcry has garnered support from the crypto community, with some urging him to pursue legal action against YouTube once again, pointing to the platform’s role in promoting deepfake content.
The XRP Ledger Forensics team also cautioned XRP holders to remain wary of deepfakes and advised the community to avoid enticing but dubious “free money” schemes.
Fake XRP ETF news
The XRP community is also battling the emergence of a fake regulatory filing that suggested that BlackRock was pursuing an XRP ETF.
CryptoSlate reported that the filing was submitted to Delaware’s Division of Corporations and closely resembled BlackRock’s filings for its spot Ethereum and spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.
However, a BlackRock representative told The Block the filing did not emanate from the firm despite being filed under the name and address of one of its managing directors. The origin of the filing remains unclear at present.