San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California against various AI websites that enable users to “nudify” or “undress” women and children in images by using AI, without the consent of the persons depicted.
According to the Complaint (PDF below), “The primary purpose of Defendants’ websites is to create fake, nude images of women and girls without their consent. Defendants tout their ability to let users ‘see anyone naked.’ As one Defendant puts it: ‘[i]magine wasting time taking her out on dates, when you can just use [the website] to get her nudes.’ Collectively, these sites have been visited over 200 million times just in the first six months of 2024.”
The Complaint alleges great harm: “Victims have little to no recourse, as they face significant obstacles to remove these images once they have been disseminated. They are left with profound psychological, emotional, economic, and reputational harms, and without control and autonomy over their bodies and images. As one victim explained, ‘I felt like I didn’t have a choice in what happened to me or what happened to my body.’ Another emphasized that she and her family live in ‘hopelessness and perpetual fear that, at any time, such images can reappear and be viewed by countless others.’”
The defendants include Sol Ecom, Inc., Briver LLC, Itai Tech Ltd., Defirex OÜ, Itai OÜ, Augustin Gribinets, and Does #1 through #50.
Count 1 VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 V. ALL DEFENDANTS
This count is brought under the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, which prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” San Francisco alleges unlawful acts based on alleged violations of the following statutes:
- California’s deepfake law “prohibiting the creation and intentional disclosure of nonconsensual sexually explicit images, or aided and abetted violations of California Civil Code section 1708.86(b)(1) by the acts and practices set forth herein.prohibiting nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes of people,” California Civil Code section 1708.86(b)(1). (California enacted this law in 2020 in part to address AI deepfake porn.)
- California’s deepfake law “prohibiting the intentional distribution of nonconsensual depictions of intimate body parts, or aided and abetted violations of California Civil Code section 1708.85(a) by their acts and practices set forth herein.” California Civil Code section 1708.85(a).
- California’s nonconsensual pornography criminal law “prohibiting the intentional distribution of nonconsensual depictions of intimate body parts of an identifiable person, or aided and abetted violations of California Penal section 647(j)(4) in violation of California Penal Code section 31 by the acts and practices set forth herein.” California Penal Code section 647(j). (California enacted this criminal law in 2013 to address revenge porn.)
- Federal nonconsensual intimate images law “prohibiting the knowing or reckless disclosure in interstate commerce of intimate visual depictions of identifiable persons, or aided and abetted violations.” 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(1). (This was a new cause of action included in Congress’s passage of the 2022 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization. It is sometimes referred to as “revenge porn.”)
Count 2 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200
V. DEFENDANTS BRIVER LLC, ITAI TECH LTD., AUGUSTIN GRIBINETS, DOE #1, DOE #2, DOE #3 & DOE #4
This count is brought only against defendants BRIVER LLC, ITAI TECH LTD., AUGUSTIN GRIBINETS, DOE #1, DOE #2, DOE #3 & DOE #4.
It brought under the California Business and Professions Code section 17200 for alleged criminal acts in violation of California Penal Code section 311.3(a), 311.2(a), 311.2(b), and 311.2(c), as well as federal law codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1465, 1466, 1466A(a)(1), 1466A(b)(1), 2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(4)(B), 2252A(5)(B), 2252A(a)(7). A summary of the offenses can be found on pp. 22-24 of the Complaint below.