xAI Seeks to End Anonymity for Grok Deepfake Nudes Victims
▼ Summary
– xAI is requesting the court to publicly identify four pseudonymous plaintiffs who allege deepfake sexualized images of them, including of one as a child, were created using Grok.
– The four plaintiffs described emotional distress from the deepfakes and fear further harassment and doxing if forced to use real names in their lawsuit against xAI.
– Grok was used to create around 3 million sexualized images over 11 days, with 23,000 potentially involving children, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
– The lawsuit was initially filed in January with one pseudonymous claimant, later refiled with four pseudonymous plaintiffs in May, with a judge initially allowing pseudonyms.
– xAI argues in motions that real names are required under civil court laws and claims no evidence of specific further harm, while plaintiffs’ lawyers say xAI seeks to intimidate them.
Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, is pushing to publicly name four individuals who allege that sexually explicit deepfake images were generated of them using the Grok chatbot. Court documents reveal that one of these victims is reportedly a minor depicted in such content. The legal battle centers on whether the plaintiffs can proceed anonymously, a shield they argue is essential for their safety and mental well-being.
On May 29, the four primary claimants in a federal class-action suit,identified only as South Carolina Doe, South Carolina Roe, New Jersey Doe, and Ohio Doe,submitted sworn affidavits detailing the emotional turmoil they endured after the alleged deepfakes were created earlier this year. They fear that revealing their real identities could trigger relentless online harassment and doxing, compounding the trauma they already face. The lawsuit targets xAI for its role in enabling the creation of these images through Grok.
“Having stripped them of their clothes, xAI now seeks to strip Plaintiffs of their pseudonyms in an obvious effort to intimidate Plaintiffs into dropping the litigation by compounding the same harms that they seek to remedy,” wrote Sophia Rios, an attorney at Berger Montague representing the group. She declined to comment further beyond the filings. The motion argues that xAI is trivializing the abuse it allegedly facilitated.
The controversy erupted in January when Grok, a chatbot owned by Musk, sparked global backlash after men used it to generate fake nude images of women, including children. These images circulated on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk. An analysis by the Center for Countering Digital Hate estimated that Grok produced nearly 3 million sexualized images in just 11 days, with roughly 23,000 potentially involving minors. In response to mounting lawsuits and regulatory pressure, SpaceX,which now owns xAI,has allocated over $500 million to address the fallout.
The class-action suit was originally filed in January with a single pseudonymous lead plaintiff. A judge in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted permission for that individual to proceed as Jane Doe. The case was later amended to include four pseudonymous plaintiffs, with Jane Doe now referred to as South Carolina Doe.
Court records indicate that the plaintiffs agreed to disclose their real names and personal details to xAI privately, but they sought to keep them out of public filings to avoid being linked to the images and to prevent further online abuse. Notably, no deepfake images of the plaintiffs have been included in any public legal documents.
In mid-May, xAI filed two motions asking the federal court to reverse its earlier ruling allowing pseudonyms. The company argues that civil court rules generally require all parties to be named, though exceptions exist. Law360 first reported on these motions. xAI’s lawyers contend that the public has a right to know who is suing the company, claiming that no specific evidence of future harm or threats has been presented. They also assert that since the deepfake images will not be made public during the litigation, privacy concerns are mitigated.
(Source: Wired)
