Woman seen from behind looking out of a window

Two different risks

Safety: where the money goes and what Philippine law says

Three risks run at the same time here, and they are worth keeping apart: the money of the person paying, the device it is paid from, and the person who appears in the image.

See the services Common questions

Short answer

There is no single safe-or-unsafe answer, because three different risks run at the same time: your file moves to servers in a country that is often not named, your money moves along a rail that usually cannot be reversed, and the act itself can be a criminal offence when it involves somebody else's photograph. The first two can be reduced by reading documents before paying. The third is not negotiable.

This page separates what can genuinely be checked from outside from what is only an assertion — including several things that, honestly, nobody can prove. The rest of the topics are collected in the overview.

First risk

Where your file and your data go

The moment an image is sent, it exists in two places: on your phone and on somebody else's infrastructure. The second one decides the whole risk.

Computing an image needs a server-class graphics card, so almost every service processes in a data centre — often in a jurisdiction it does not name. Philippine law does address the transfer: the Data Privacy Act of 2012 makes a personal information controller accountable for personal data transferred to a third party, including one abroad, and the National Privacy Commission is the body that enforces it. That matters when the controller can be identified — and in this category the identity is exactly what disappears most often.

Two of the six write down a company, and both sit where a complaint from Manila arrives slowly and expensively: Singapore and Hong Kong in one case, the British Virgin Islands in the other, and neither of them beside a published street address. The remaining four leave a brand, and a brand cannot be served with anything. That is the difference this page turns on: a transfer abroad stays accountable only while the controller at the far end has a name to put on the paperwork, and four times out of six there is none. Inconsistency inside one service says as much as silence does — a Deep Undress screen promises that photos are never stored while two others give the result 72 hours on the servers, and that unreconciled pair is all you are offered about your file.

What moves is also more than the picture. An image file carries data inside it — device model, capture date, sometimes location coordinates — and the request that delivers it carries an IP address and a browser fingerprint. Some services strip that, some keep it as it arrives, and almost none explains which. Deleting the history in your account does not touch the copy already sitting on their side.

Question	How to check it from outside	What stays invisible
Who operates it	Look for a legal name in the terms of service and the privacy policy; some write one, some write none at all.	Who the beneficial owner is when the named entity is a shell.
How long files are kept	Compare every page that mentions a retention period; if the numbers disagree, that is already the answer.	Whether the written number is what actually happens on the server.
What it costs	See whether a complete tariff is visible before registration or only after an account exists.	Extra charges that appear only on the payment screen.
Whether results are reused	Find the licence clause covering material you send, in the terms of service.	Where copies go once they are handed to a third-party provider.

The third column is written that honestly on purpose. There is no way to verify deletion from outside: what can be checked is what they promise and whether the promise is consistent with itself. What the services publish about the file they hand back, and what happens to the file afterwards, is set out separately.

Second risk

Five ways money disappears in this category

Losses rarely arrive as one big charge. They arrive as small repeating charges, or as a payment with no way home.

Payments that cannot be pulled back
Some services take crypto only. The transaction is final once the network confirms it: no card issuer holds the funds, and no dispute can be raised. None of the six accepts GCash, Maya or a counter deposit, so a buyer without a card is pushed onto exactly that rail.
Subscriptions that renew themselves
A weekly or monthly charge that keeps running after the first use. What separates the services here is whether the terms refuse auto-renewal in writing — several do; the installer files circulating under the same name do not.
Unfamiliar payment gateways
The name on your bank statement is not the name of the service but a foreign intermediary. When you raise a dispute with the bank, that is the name you have to explain. Deep Undress warns in writing that its billing descriptor can differ.
Activation keys sold separately
The pattern typical of installer files: the program costs nothing, but its first screen demands a key bought elsewhere, usually in a private conversation with no receipt.
Final sales with no refund
A no-refund clause is perfectly lawful to write, and some services write it plainly. The problem starts when the clause is only read after the payment has gone through.

Some services pass that check reasonably well by their own documents: one publishes a price per image before an account exists and refuses auto-renewal, another takes cards and writes a fourteen-day refund window. That is not a statement about output quality — it only means there is something to hold them to if the promise is broken.

On a phone the loss rarely stops at money: what is actually being sold under the word app, and what is really being installed when a file is sideloaded, is taken apart separately. On chat platforms the pattern is different again, and why the channels disappear and come back has a page of its own.

The limits of honesty

What can be established and what cannot

A review promising certainty in both columns is selling something. The real split looks roughly like this.

Can be checked

Whether a legal name and jurisdiction appear in the service's official documents.
Whether a full tariff is visible before registration or hidden behind an account.
Whether the terms of service refuse auto-renewal in writing.
Whether a retention period is stated, and whether the figure is consistent across every page.
Whether there is a contact address that actually receives complaints.

Cannot be checked

Whether files are really deleted at the time stated.
Who has access to the processing queue on their side.
Whether results and source photos are used to train the next model.
Which country's servers your file actually comes to rest in.
Who the ultimate owner is behind the company that is named.

One habit moves several lines from the right column to the left: saving the terms of service and the privacy policy before paying, with the date you accessed them. Documents in this category change quietly, and the copy you hold is the only version you can point at if the wording later differs. The same applies to the domains themselves — an old registration proves the address existed, not that anyone answers for it, which is the subject of the page on spotting the copies.

The right column does not shrink because a service looks tidy. What changes is only this: if the left column is filled in, there is somebody who can be held to account when a promise in it is broken.

Third risk

Where this stands under Philippine law

This is where "safe or not" has a firm answer, and the answer does not depend on which service was used. There is no standalone deepfake statute in the Philippines as of 2026; 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, signed in February 2010, 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. Section 5 sets the penalty at not less than three and not more than seven years of imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both.

Read it precisely, because the precision matters. The statute is written around an image captured of the person, and the later acts in the section refer back to "such photo or video". That makes it squarely applicable when a real intimate image is copied, sold or posted — the most common way these cases actually run, since a fabricated picture is usually distributed alongside real photographs of the same person. How far it reaches a picture that was entirely computed is a question the text does not settle, and anyone telling you it is settled is guessing.

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 unauthorised 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 this is the provision that reaches altered and fabricated material about an identifiable person, and why the argument "it is not really her body" is not a defence: what the law protects is the person, not the authenticity of the pixels. Forwarding a file into one group chat already falls inside the words "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 penalised 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.

For anything in this category 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; the Cybercrime Prevention Act raises it. The same Act also defines cybersex in Section 4(c)(1) as the wilful engagement, maintenance, control or operation of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer system, for favour or consideration — a provision aimed at the operation of such a service rather than at a single user.

The data of the person in the photo

A face is personal data, and the person in the image holds rights over it even though they were not the one who sent it. Republic Act 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, classes information about an individual's sexual life as sensitive personal information, and Section 16 gives a data subject the right to suspend, withdraw or order the blocking, removal or destruction of personal information held about them once it is shown to be unlawfully obtained, used for unauthorised purposes or no longer necessary.

The consequence is simple and often surprising: sending a friend's photograph to a service is processing another person's personal data, and you are not its owner. The National Privacy Commission receives complaints on exactly that footing — but it needs a controller with a name. That is the point at which several of these services lose their addressee, and it is why the operator row matters more than the price row.

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, defines child sexual abuse or exploitation material to include computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented or made to appear to be a child, produced by electronic, digital or any other means. Producing it is prohibited by Section 4(b), and Section 10(a) sets the penalty for that at life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₱2,000,000; Republic Act 9775 already covered child pornography before it.

That the image was calculated rather than photographed changes nothing, consent is irrelevant, and there is no technical argument that applies. This is also the one area where the reporting route is the most direct: the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group and the NBI Cybercrime Division both run dedicated units for it.

If you are the one harmed

The order of steps decides the outcome. Document first: the full address of every post, screenshots showing the address bar and the visible time, and the names of the accounts or channels spreading it. A successful report deletes the post together with the evidence, so the archive has to exist before anything is set in motion.

After that, three routes run in parallel and none waits for the others: a report to the platform, a criminal complaint to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or the NBI Cybercrime Division, and — where personal data is involved — a complaint to the National Privacy Commission. Every step, including what to write in each request, is set out in our page on who to go to first.

This site takes no part in any stage of what is described above: it stores no files, publishes no installer links, accepts no photos and operates no image service. Who writes here, by what method, and how mistakes get corrected is set out openly, and this page is editorial rather than legal advice — for a concrete case, whether as the person harmed or as the person accused, what is needed is a lawyer, not an article.

What can be held to account

Three services with something written down

These three publish a company name, a refund window or a retention period before an account is created — the three things that turn a promise into something claimable. It is not a statement about output quality, which we did not test.

1Refund window

UndressHer

Names Telelink Network Limited in the British Virgin Islands, takes debit and credit cards and crypto assets, and is the only one of the six with a written refund window of 14 calendar days, prorated by usage — according to its own documentation.

Open site
2Registered companies

WaveSpeed

Lists two registered companies with addresses in Singapore and Hong Kong, takes cards, PayPal and bank transfer, and forbids non-consensual nudity in writing — while admitting it does not monitor its models' outputs.

Open site
3Retention in writing

Undresswith

The only one naming a single figure for incoming files — encrypted for at most 24 hours, then deleted — while stating that account, payment and IP records are kept for seven years, according to its own documentation.

Open site

The "Open site" buttons are affiliate links: a purchase on the other side earns this desk a commission at no extra cost to you, and it changes nothing on this page. Having documents does not mean their contents favour you — they still have to be read, especially the retention period and the refund clause.

Common questions

About safety, money and the law

Answered with what can be pointed at: the text of the statutes and the services' own documents. Where there is no basis, that is said too.

Is using a service like this against the law in the Philippines?

Once a real person's photograph is involved without their consent, yes: the Safe Spaces Act reaches the uploading and sharing of sexual media about them, the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act reaches the copying and distribution of intimate images, and the Cybercrime Prevention Act raises the penalty by one degree because it was done through ICT. Where a child is depicted, the Anti-OSAEC Act applies with no exception at all.

Is there a specific deepfake law here?

No, not as of 2026. Bills have been filed in Congress, and a filed bill is not a law. What already applies is the stack described above, which was written around consent and distribution rather than around the technology used.

Can I be sure my photo is really deleted?

No. From outside, all that can be checked is what a service promises and whether the promise is consistent across its own pages. There is no way to verify deletion on somebody else's server.

Is a service that only takes crypto riskier?

For your money, yes. A crypto payment is final once the network confirms it, while a card leaves the issuer as a party that can hold or dispute the charge. None of the six takes GCash or Maya, so for a buyer without a card the crypto rail is often the only one on offer.

How do I spot a subscription that keeps running?

Search the terms of service for the words auto-renewal before paying, and check whether the price shown is per period. If the documents say nothing about it, assume the charge repeats — and check your card statement for a name you do not recognise rather than the name of the service.

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 — to the platform, to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or the NBI Cybercrime Division, and to the National Privacy Commission where personal data is involved. Those run in parallel, because they travel different routes.

Did this desk test the services it names?

No. No images are processed here and no paid accounts were opened. What is recorded is what each service states in its own official documents, together with the places where those documents contradict themselves.