Can't Trust the Blue Verification Badge? The Spread of "Fake Celebrities" on Instagram

"The Post by the Person" Was an AI Fake—The Pitfalls of Social Media Highlighted by 500,000 Likes

A photo of a favorite actor appeared. The account had a blue verification badge and over a million followers. Many people were hitting "like."

Still, that image isn't necessarily a post by the person themselves.

An incident involving actress Mia Goth, reported by the U.S. technology media "The Verge" on October 15, 2026, highlighted this reality.

The issue arose with an image that spread shortly after it was reported that Goth had filed for divorce from actor Shia LaBeouf. In the photo, she wore a T-shirt with a message seemingly directed at her former partner.

However, according to her side, it was an AI-generated fake image.

The problem wasn't just that "it looked real." The combination of the account's display, the timing of the post, the music, and the massive reactions led to the perception that things not spoken by the person were taken as "the person's intent."

The Context of "Right After the Divorce" Made the Fake More Plausible

According to The Verge, the image was posted by Instagram's "@miagoth_." While it had over a million followers and a blue verification badge, it was also indicated as a fan account.

The T-shirt's message, when translated to Japanese, means something like "My ex is my biggest fan." The post was accompanied by Beyoncé's song "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)."

For those aware of the divorce news, it was an easily interpretable combination as "a jab at the ex" or "enjoying a new life."

According to the article, the image garnered about 500,000 likes in a few days, with entertainment industry figures also reacting.

However, this number doesn't mean about 500,000 people believed it was real. It could include those who reacted without considering its authenticity or those who understood it was a manipulated image. Nonetheless, the image certainly garnered widespread attention.

What was created here wasn't just a non-existent photo but also a narrative that "Goth showed this attitude about the divorce."

A Blue Badge and "Official by the Person" Are Not the Same

Goth's representative, Christine Tripicchio, explained that Goth does not own or use social media and has repeatedly filed complaints with Instagram about the account posting the fake AI image.

The representative particularly took issue with the fact that such fan accounts had a blue verification badge.

For users, a blue badge tends to convey the impression that "it's trustworthy." However, having a verification mark on an account, the celebrity themselves operating it, and each image being genuine are separate matters to verify.

What can be inferred from this case is not that "all blue badges are meaningless."It means one should not judge the authenticity of the operator or the content just by the badge.

Even if the profile states it's a fan page, users may not open it. If they only see the image in the recommended section or if a screenshot is reposted on another social media, only the image, detached from the explanation, spreads.

The explanation provided by the poster may not necessarily reach the recipient.

On Social Media, the Correction "The Person Does Not Use Social Media" Was Shared

This incident also became a topic on the overseas bulletin board-type social media "Reddit."

In a post on "r/entertainment" that could be confirmed, a user explained the circumstances, stating that Goth herself does not have a social media account and that this image was not posted by her. They also mentioned that the source of the image had a blue verification badge.

On "r/popculturechat," the part of the report stating that Goth herself did not post the problematic selfie image was shared.

The axis of the reactions that can be confirmed here includes not only favorable reactions to the image but also the spread of corrections that "it was not originally a post by the person."

However, it is not possible to judge the overall opinion of social media or the reactions of Japanese users from some public posts. It would not be appropriate to replace it with expressions like "anger is exploding worldwide."

Rather, the course of events this time shows that social media is a place where fake images are spread and a place where misrecognitions are corrected. The issue is whether that correction reaches those who saw the initial image.

Even with the Intent to "Support," One Cannot Speak for the Person's Feelings

Regarding AI images dealing with celebrities, some might think there's no problem as long as there's no obvious malice. There are various ways to enjoy fan creations and parodies.

However, the way creations understood as such are received differs from posts that appear to be photos recording actual events.

For example, even if one creates an image of a favorite actor smiling cheerfully, if it spreads as a recent photo of the person, it conveys a life or emotions that have not actually been confirmed. If product images are combined, it might be misunderstood that the person uses or endorses them.

Even if some people received the impression of the image favorably this time, that does not mean the person consented to it.

The intention to support and the act of creating the person's thoughts using their face need to be considered separately.

Especially in personal matters like divorce or family issues, the choice of the person not to express anything has meaning. It is not a light joke when that silence is filled with words or attitudes preferred by third parties through AI images.

Even with an AI Label, There Are Still Things to Confirm

Meta explained its initiative to label AI-generated and manipulated content and provide information to users in a policy announced in 2024 and updated later. This system uses industry-standard technical signals and declarations by the poster.

Such displays can aid in judgment. However, just the display of "AI" does not resolve all doubts.

Whether it was made by AI, whether the person depicted consented, whether the person truly endorsed the product or expressed that intention—these are separate issues.

Also, since the system is based on detection and declaration, the absence of a label should not be treated as proof of authenticity.

What users need is a perspective to verify the source of the post and the claims accompanying the image, in addition to the presence or absence of labels.

What Can Be Done in Japan Before Sharing "Posts by Your Favorite"

For Japanese readers, this is not just distant overseas entertainment news.

For posts by actors, idols, musicians, athletes, and others they support, feelings of joy or surprise tend to come first. In overseas posts, differences in language in profiles or disclaimers can also make verification difficult.

Before sharing, the following points should be checked.

• Whether the account is linked from the official site or the affiliated office. Do not judge it as the person's just because the name or photo is the same.
• Whether there is an explanation like fan, parody, or unofficial. Look at the profile as well as the translated text.
• What the image is explained to prove. Consider the existence of the photo separately from claims about the person's emotions, relationships, or product endorsements.
• Whether there is confirmation by the person or their representative. Even if there are multiple articles, they may all refer to the same unverified post.
• Whether you can hold off without concluding when the source is unclear. Choosing not to spread it can be an action to protect your favorite.

There is no need to guess whether it's AI just by looking at the fingertips or background of the image. Even if there is no unnaturalness in appearance, it is not necessarily an image released by the person.

Those introducing it in Japanese translation also need to be careful. If an "image created by a fan" changes to "a photo released by the person" in the introduction text, the meaning changes significantly.

What Should Be Protected Is Not Just the Face, But Also the "Freedom Not to Speak"

What the Mia Goth incident showed is the reality that even if one does not use social media, they can be made to have said something on it.

Images not posted by the person themselves are clad in the person's appearance and name, and the reactions around them increase their plausibility. In the meantime, emotions and intentions that have not actually been expressed are read into them.

Platforms need to make verification displays, responses to impersonation, and explanations of AI-generated content in a way that users are less likely to misinterpret. Those reporting also need a stance of not replacing popularity of a post with fact-checking.

And viewers should separate their expectations of "it would be interesting if the person said this" or "I wish it were like this" from the verifiable facts.

A celebrity's face is not material for telling stories that anyone likes. Not only what to say, but also the choice not to say anything should be available to the person.

Sources and References

1. The Verge: The report on which this article is based, dated October 15, 2026. About Mia Goth's fake image, fan account verification display, follower count, reaction count, and representative's explanation.
   https://www.theverge.com/report/1011927/instagram-celebrity-ai-slop-likeness-taylor-swift-mia-goth

2. The Verge: Prior report on the same matter. Confirmation of the representative's explanation that the person does not use social media and the process of requesting deletion.
   https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/1010277/mia-goth-instagram-ai-shirt-deepfake-divorcetheverge.com

3. Reddit "r/entertainment": Reference source for reactions on social media. Confirmation of comments explaining that it was not a post by the person and mention of the blue verification badge. It is a part of the reactions on the board and does not represent the overall public opinion.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/1x5eoc3/mia_goth_slams_instagrams_incomprehensible/reddit.com

4. Reddit "r/popculturechat": Example of sharing correction information. Confirmation that the report part stating that Goth herself did not post the image was shared.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1x55kpd/mia_goth_slams_instagrams_incomprehensible/reddit.com

5. Meta Official: Policy on labeling AI-generated and manipulated content. Reference to the concept of display using technical signals and declarations by the poster.
   https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/metas-approach-to-labeling-ai-generated-content-and-manipulated-media/