Three risks at once
Is DeepNude safe?
Payment risks, file privacy and the Philippine rules on sharing intimate images.
Short answer
Is DeepNude safe is three questions at once: whether your money can come back, whether your file stays where you sent it, and whether the act itself is lawful. The first two you settle by reading a tariff and a retention clause before paying. The third does not depend on which service you pick.
The money comes first below, because that is where most of the loss happens, and then the statutes, because that is where a loss stops being recoverable. Prices and scores for all six sit on the front page of this guide.
First risk
Five ways the money disappears
Losses here rarely arrive as one big charge. They arrive as small repeating ones, or as a payment with no route home.
Payments that cannot be pulled back
Cryptocurrency settles the moment the network confirms it: no issuer holds the funds and no dispute can be raised. Two of the six bill that way, and since no readable payment list names GCash or Maya, a buyer without a card lands on that rail by default.
Charges that renew themselves
A weekly or monthly line that keeps running after the first use. What separates these services is whether the terms refuse auto-renewal in writing — several do, in plain words.
A name on the statement you do not recognise
The biller is often a foreign intermediary rather than the service, and that is the name you have to explain to the bank. Deep Undress at least warns in writing that its descriptor can differ.
Keys sold separately
The pattern typical of files passed around by strangers: the download costs nothing and the first screen demands a key bought in a private chat, with no receipt. What is inside those files is in what an APK really installs.
Final sales
A no-refund clause is lawful to write and some write it plainly. The trouble starts when it is read after the payment clears: the balance comes off per run, not per success.
What survives a dispute
The four promises with a number attached
A commitment you can quote back beats a page of reassurance. Four of the six publish one, and they measure different things.
Clocks on the file
Two services say how long something lives, and both say it in hours.
- Undresswith: twenty-four hours on the file you upload, encrypted, then deleted;
- Deep Undress: seventy-two hours of availability on the finished result;
- account records outlive both by years, on every service in the group;
- clearing your own history is the only part under your control: what the result is and where it goes.
Clocks on the money
Two more put a deadline on themselves rather than on the data.
- UndressHer: fourteen calendar days to request a refund, fourteen working days to pay it;
- Ainudez: five working days to answer a complaint, and no charge that renews by itself;
- WaveSpeed adds the only card rail with an issuer able to hold a payment;
- what a welcome balance is worth: how far the free credits go.
None of this measures output quality. It means only that when a promise breaks there is a sentence to point at — and on a rail where a charge cannot be reversed, that sentence is your whole protection. Copies of the same offer elsewhere are a separate problem: sorting the live addresses from the copies.
Something in writing
Three services that commit to a number before you pay
Each publishes a company, a clock or a refund rule outside the account — what turns a promise into something claimable. Order follows the same editorial scale used across the site.
-
124 hours, in writingUndresswith
Puts a number on the input: what you upload is held encrypted for twenty-four hours at most, then deleted, while account and payment records stay for seven years. The whole gem ladder is readable before you pay — about ₱4 a picture on the ₱1,260 pack.
-
2Card and chargebackWaveSpeed
Takes Visa, Mastercard, American Express, PayPal or a transfer, so a disputed charge still has an issuer behind it. Two registered companies sign the terms, and a new account opens with US$1 already credited.
-
3Refund in daysUndressHer
Fourteen calendar days to ask for your money back and fourteen working days to be paid — the only refund window here written as a number. A card works at checkout and a named company stands behind the clause.
The “Open site” buttons are advertising links: pay on the other side and this site earns a commission at no extra cost to you. Having documents is not the same as having favourable ones — the retention and refund clauses still have to be read.
Second risk
Where Philippine law draws the line
This is the part with a firm answer, and it does not depend on which service was used. There is no standalone deepfake statute here; what exists is a stack of laws that already reach the conduct from several directions.
The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
Republic Act 9995, the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009, prohibits four separate acts in Section 4: taking a photo or video of a person performing a sexual act or capturing an image of their private area without consent and where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy; copying or reproducing such material; selling or distributing it; and publishing or broadcasting it, expressly including through the internet and cellular phones. The last three apply “notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given”, so agreeing to be photographed is not agreeing to be shared. Section 5 sets imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine of ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both.
The statute is written around an image captured of the person, and the later acts refer back to “such photo or video”. It applies squarely when a real intimate image is copied, sold or posted; how far it reaches an entirely computed picture the text does not settle.
Gender-based online sexual harassment
Section 12 of Republic Act 11313, the Safe Spaces Act of 2019, defines gender-based online sexual harassment to include the uploading and sharing, without the victim's consent, of any form of media containing photos, voice or video with sexual content, and any unauthorized recording or sharing of the victim's photos, videos or information online. Section 13 makes the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group the body that receives those complaints; Section 14 sets the penalty at prisión correccional in its medium period or a fine of ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both.
The wording turns on consent and on the act of sharing, not on how the file was produced. That is why it reaches altered and fabricated material about an identifiable person, and why “it is not really her body” is no defence. Forwarding a file into one group chat already falls inside “uploading and sharing”.
One degree higher when ICT is used
Section 6 of Republic Act 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, states that all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code and by special laws, when committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies, are covered by that Act, and that the penalty imposed shall be one degree higher than the one provided by the underlying law.
Here that clause is not theoretical: the image is produced on a remote server, sent over the internet and shared through an app. The underlying offence sets the floor; this Act raises it. “I only kept it on my phone” is not a neutral position either — taking, copying and reproducing are listed separately from distribution and need no audience.
The data of the person in the photo
A face is personal data. Republic Act 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, classes information about an individual's sexual life as sensitive personal information, and Section 16(e) gives a data subject the right to suspend, withdraw or order the blocking, removal or destruction of personal information held about them on substantial proof that it is false, unlawfully obtained, used for unauthorized purposes or no longer necessary.
Sending somebody else's photograph to a service is processing another person's personal data, and you are not its owner. The National Privacy Commission takes complaints on that footing, but it needs a controller with a name — which is why the operator row matters as much as the price row: who publishes what, side by side.
Where a child is depicted
Here there is no interpretive room at all. Republic Act 11930, the Anti-OSAEC and Anti-CSAEM Act of 2022, counts as a child, in Section 3(a), computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented or made to appear to be a child — so sexual material built that way is child sexual abuse or exploitation material under Section 3(c). Producing it is prohibited by Section 4(b), and Section 10(a) sets the penalty at life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₱2,000,000.
If you are the one harmed
The order of steps decides the outcome. Document first: the address of every post, screenshots showing the address bar and the visible time, the names of the accounts spreading it. A successful report deletes the post together with the evidence, so the archive has to exist first.
Then three routes run in parallel: the platform, a criminal complaint to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or the NBI Cybercrime Division, and the National Privacy Commission where personal data is involved. What to write in each is in who to report to first; channels that vanish and return under a new handle are in what a chat handle keeps.
None of it passes through this site, which keeps no files and accepts no photos. Who writes here and how corrections are made is in how this guide is put together. This page is editorial, not legal advice.
Money, files and the law
Five questions about whether DeepNude is safe
Five answers, each resting on a statute or on a published document.
Is there a specific deepfake law in the Philippines?
No. Bills have been filed in Congress, and a filed bill is not a law. What applies is the stack above, written around consent and distribution rather than technology, which is why it reaches computed images as readily as photographed ones.
Can I be sure my photo is really deleted?
You can check what a service promises and whether it says the same thing on every page. Verifying deletion on somebody else's server is not possible from outside, so a written clock — twenty-four hours at Undresswith, seventy-two on the result at Deep Undress — is the strongest form this gets.
Is a crypto-only service riskier for my money?
For the money, yes. A crypto payment is final once confirmed; a card leaves an issuer who can hold or dispute it. Two of the six take a card, which is also where a GCash or Maya Visa card goes through — neither wallet is named directly on any readable payment list.
Someone has already made an image of me. What comes first?
Evidence: links, screenshots with the address bar and time visible, account names. Only then the reports — platform, PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division, and the National Privacy Commission. They travel different routes, so run them in parallel; writing to this desk replaces none of them.
Did this site test the services it names?
The editors checked the conditions each service publishes about itself and noted where those documents contradict each other. No images are processed here and no measurement of output is published: what each one asks for before it will work.