Forensic probe finds no evidence of AI model-copying claims, Huffer says
Saturday, 4 July 2026
New Zealand fashion brand Huffer says it commissioned an “independent forensic investigation” to determine whether the likenesses of any models were used in artificially generated images - and claims “no evidence” was found.
Huffer has also engaged a high-profile public relations firm to handle its communications in the wake of a furore over its use of AI-generated images, The Post can reveal.
And it has also sent a further legal letter to the local model at the centre of the saga.
It’s been a month since Elijah Timmins-Scanlon first accused the company of using artificial intelligence to create models, and of using his likeness in an image.
Read more:
RNZ won’t win young listeners through radio, says new chairperson
Crayfish snags, gold Mallowpuffs and caviar: Inside NZ’s Michelin Guide launch
At the time, the company’s managing director Kate Berry did not deny using AI to create images used for marketing, but rejected using Timmins-Scanlon’s likeness.
Huffer would later send a legal letter to Timmins-Scanlon - which it subsequently withdrew - raising the potential of proceedings under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
The company eventually accepted in a post on Instagram that it had used an “AI design tool” to create images.
In a statement on Friday evening issued via Pead PR, a Huffer spokesperson said the company had commissioned an independent forensic investigation by a specialist in forensic technology and digital evidence to “establish the facts”.
The investigation found no evidence that Huffer, or the agency acting on its behalf, used photographs or images of Timmins-Scanlon, his brother, or any other model as prompts, inputs or reference material to generate the AI images in question, the Huffer statement said.
“The report also found no evidence supporting allegations that Huffer copied or recreated the likeness of any model using AI,” Huffer said.
“From the outset, our priority was to establish the facts through an independent process rather than through competing claims made in the media or on social media.
“Once financial demands had been made against Huffer, it was essential that the allegations were independently tested rather than accepted at face value. That is why Huffer commissioned an independent forensic specialist with expertise in digital evidence and AI systems.”
The Post has asked for a full copy of the independent report and for the name of specialist that conducted it.
Huffer said that, as a result of the investigation, it does “not consider there is any basis for claims for compensation arising from those allegations”.
Timmins-Scanlon told The Post he wants to see a copy of the forensic report. “I would love to see a copy. I think everyone would,” he said.
“I'm actually more concerned about how they've acted on this, not so much what they've done, but how they've responded.”
The company, in its statement, also acknowledged that “aspects” of its public response “fell short of the standard” it expected.
“For that we are genuinely sorry. While the independent investigation has now answered the central allegations, we recognise we could have handled parts of our response better and we have learnt from that experience,” the statement said.
When approached by The Post last month to ask about Timmins-Scanlon’s claims, Huffer’s managing director Kate Berry said the model should “think about why he's not getting work”.
She also said: “Computers are not taking models’ jobs. Computers can't try on my clothes.”
In its statement on Friday, Huffer said it now considered the matter to have been independently and comprehensively investigated.
“If allegations continue to be repeated despite the forensic findings, we will take appropriate steps to protect the reputation of our brand and business.”
The Post has seen a further legal notice issued to Timmins-Scanlon, warning against making further claims. Huffer has been asked for comment.
The letter said that Timmins-Scanlon’s claims had “caused identifiable damage to Huffer and are actionable”.
It continued: “Huffer reserves all rights … and should these defamatory statements not be removed immediately and/or continue, Huffer will pursue all legal avenues available to it to protect its reputation, business and staff, including commencing proceedings for defamation”.
While Huffer said it would not be providing compensation as a result of the allegations, it confirmed that a “small number” of “confidential settlements” were offered to models as a result of “cancelled shoots, commercial disruption and uncertainty” arising from the allegations.
“Those settlements were made without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgement that the allegations were correct,” said Huffer.
“They reflected pragmatic commercial decisions based on the engagement terms for the models and made while the other facts were still being independently established. As those settlements are confidential, we won't be commenting further on their terms.”