DM9 won a Cannes Grand Prix with AI-faked results — then lost it, and two more awards

Any industry that judges work through self-reported case studies has this flaw: the submitter benefits from the verdict. DM9 forced Cannes to add AI-transparency rules, but the problem persists in every pitch deck and investor update.

At the 2025 Cannes Lions festival, Brazilian agency DM9 won the Grand Prix in Creative Data Lions for 'Efficient Way to Pay', a campaign for Consul appliances (a Whirlpool brand). The entry video showed campaign results that appeared to demonstrate real-world impact. It was the highlight of Brazil's 107-Lion haul.

An investigation — triggered by a whistleblower tip and conducted with independent auditors — found that the entry video used AI-generated and manipulated content to simulate events and outcomes that had not occurred. DM9 admitted the video contained 'two scenes that did not faithfully reflect the project's actual execution.' Cannes Lions revoked the Grand Prix and all associated awards.

The scrutiny spread to two other DM9 campaigns. 'Plastic Blood', for OKA Biotech, claimed to convert microplastics found in human blood into everyday objects. 'Gold = Death', for the Urihi Yanomami Association, alleged that death certificates of Indigenous victims had been etched into confiscated gold bars. Both were withdrawn; all their awards were invalidated.

DM9 admitted 'serious inconsistencies regarding the truthfulness or legitimacy' of the three campaigns and issued an unreserved apology. Co-president and chief creative officer Icaro Doria, who led the disputed projects, resigned. Brazil's Cannes tally fell from 107 to 96 Lions. Cannes Lions announced new integrity measures including mandatory AI-transparency disclosures.

Faked video evidence won a Grand Prix, but a whistleblower triggered an investigation that revoked it, invalidated two other campaigns, and cost Brazil 11 Lions.

The festival's judging process relied on the entry video as evidence of real-world impact; AI-generated scenes exploited that trust by making fabricated results look documented

The agency's incentive structure rewarded winning awards — the campaigns were designed to impress jurors, not to document actual client outcomes

Three separate campaigns with 'serious inconsistencies' suggests the problem was cultural within the agency's creative leadership, not a single bad decision

The whistleblower had to trigger the investigation; the festival's own review process did not detect the manipulation before awarding the Grand Prix

An award submission is a claim of fact, not a creative exercise. Fabricating results risks the prize, the client's trust, the festival's credibility, and every agency's reputation in the market.

The scandal prompted a broader reckoning in the advertising industry about AI-generated content in award submissions and the pressure to fabricate results for festival glory. DM9 pledged to establish an AI ethics committee. The case is cited alongside earlier Cannes controversies about 'ghost ads' — campaigns created solely to win awards, never run for a real client.