Huffer Statement Of Findings & AI Policy

Summary of Independent Forensic Report Findings – 7 July 2026

Anthony Harper, Legal Counsel acting for Huffer commissioned Incident Response Solutions (IRS), an independent forensic technology and cyber security consultancy, to undertake a forensic review of Huffer’s agency’s AI image-generation process used to create a series of campaign images that became the subject of public allegations. The review was conducted by a forensic technology and cyber security expert Campbell McKenzie, Managing Director of IRS with more than 20 years' experience in digital investigations and expert witness work.

The purpose of the review was to determine whether any images of the individuals who raised concerns had been used, copied, referenced, adapted, or relied upon in the creation of the AI-generated campaign imagery. The review examined prompts, workflows, visual inputs, output images, available records and supporting materials.

The investigation established that no facial images of any of the individuals whose likenesses were alleged to have been used were ever provided to, uploaded into, or used by the AI image-generation process. IRS concluded it could not identify any prompt, image reference, workflow record or output indicating that no individual's facial likeness was used as an input or reference when generating the images.

As part of the review, IRS examined the agency's workflow and prompt history and found that the prompts used to generate the images did not reference any specific model, individual, or previous Huffer modelling work. Aside from identifying a subjects gender, the prompts contained no instructions relating to the generation of a particular face or facial features.

The investigation also confirmed that product images supplied for use in the AI workflow had model faces deliberately redacted before being uploaded to image-generation tools.

IRS found that while clothing, poses and other non-facial attributes from product imagery could influence aspects of a generated image, there was no evidence that facial likenesses were sourced from or derived from identifiable individuals.

Importantly, the forensic review concluded that the available evidence does not support allegations that Huffer "used AI to create a model version" of any of the individuals whose facial likenesses were alleged to have been used or that Huffer used their facial images without permission. IRS did not identify any prompt, image reference, workflow record, or output indicating that an image of any of the individuals whose facial likenesses were alleged to have been used , or any source material depicting any of them, was used as a direct reference in generating the faces shown in the campaign imagery.

IRS further concluded that the AI design process reviewed does not operate by copying a particular person's face to create a new version of that individual. While the system accurately reproduces Huffer's own garments from supplied product photography, the forensic evidence did not support a finding that any model's facial image had been copied.

In its final conclusion, IRS stated that it did not identify any evidence that the faces shown in the images were generated from, or by direct reference to, facial images of any of the individuals whose likenesses were alleged to have been used. The investigation confirmed that the AI design process does not copy or recreate an identifiable person's facial image from a source photograph to generate a new image. As a result, no New Zealand models were used as inputs in the creation of the facial imagery under investigation. Although Huffer's garments were used as reference material and reproduced accurately through the AI process, there is no evidence that any model's facial features were copied, replicated, or incorporated into the generated images.

The report concludes that these findings are supported by evidence to a standard capable of standing up in court.

Key findings at a glance:

· No facial images of any of the individuals whose likenesses were alleged to have been used (in the focus images) were used in the AI image-generation process.

· No prompts referenced any specific model or individual.

· Product images used in the workflow had faces redacted before upload creating a blank space behind the redaction.

· Testing by the agency confirmed original faces could not be recovered from those files.

· No evidence of copying, reproducing, or adapting the facial likeness of any identified individual.

· The available evidence does not support allegations that Huffer created an AI version of any of the individuals whose likenesses were alleged to have been used or used any of their facial images without permission.

· The independent expert considers these conclusions capable of being supported by evidence in court.

Huffer's AI Design Policy 

Huffer is built on Community. We are always striving to earn the respect of the community and create opportunities to hang out. 

AI Design tools help us create only. They do not replace  our community connections, our good judgement, integrity or the creative ideas of our people who make Huffer HUFFER.