A group of three Jane Doe teenagers, represented by lawyers from Lief Cabraser, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Jose.
The Complaint alleges a host of federal and state claims related to xAI’s Grok’s alleged generation of images depicting the teenagers in child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
The Complaint alleges that xAI promoted Grok’s ability to generate sexually explicit images in “Spicy” mode, including nudity.
The Complaint alleges that Elon Musk encouraged users by posting an image of himself in a bikini, which allegedly started a spike in explicit images as a part of a “put her in a bikini trend”L
Plaintiffs are three of the minor victims of xAI’s knowing production, possession, and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”) depicting Plaintiffs.
Their lives have been shattered by the devastating loss of privacy, dignity, and personal safety that the production and dissemination of this CSAM have caused. xAI’s financial gain through the increased use of its image- and video-making product came at their expense and wellbeing. Plaintiffs will have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that their CSAM images and videos may continue to be trafficked and traded online by child sex predators.
And Plaintiffs will live every day with the constant anxiety of not knowing whether someone they encounter has seen this invasive and sexually explicit content created with images of them as children.
Plaintiffs now bring this action against Defendants for civil remedies for personal injuries suffered as a result of violations of Chapters 77 and 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code, namely, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2252A(a)(2), (5)(B), (7); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595, 1591(a)(1), 1594, and for claims brought
under California State law and the common law.
Excerpt:
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT V. XAI
Summary Chart on Lawsuits v. xAI (PDF)
Full Chart of Lawsuits v. xAI
| Case name | Jurisdiction | Judge | Claims | Status |
| Doe 1 v. xAI Corp. Three teen girls allege a host of federal and state claims related to xAI’s Grok’s alleged generation of images depicting the teenagers in child sexual abuse material (CSAM). | Northern District of Cal., San Jose | TBA | 1. Masha’s Law: Production with the Intent to Distribute Child Pornography 18 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), 2252A(a)(7) (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 2.Masha’s Law: Distribution of Child Pornography 18 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), 2252A(a)(2) (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 3.Masha’s Law: Possession of Child Pornography 18 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), 2252A(a)(5)(B) (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 4.Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Beneficiary Liability 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595, 1594, 1591(a)(2) (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 5.California’s Statutory Right of Publicity Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 6. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 7.Strict Liability – Design Defect (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 8.Design Defect (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 9.Negligent Undertaking (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 10.Negligence Per Se (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 11.Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 12.Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) 13.Public Nuisance (on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Class against all Defendants) | Complaint filed on Mar. 16, 2026 |
| St. Clair v. xAI One of mother’s of one of Musk’s children alleges “AI chatbot Grok created and disseminated sexually explicit images (‘deepfakes‘) of St. Clair.” xAI v. St. Clair | NY Supreme Ct., removed to SDNY N.D. Tex. | Carter Jr. | 1.Strict Liability – Design Defect 2. Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect 3. Strict Liability – Marketing Defect and Failure to Warn 4. New York General Business Law (GBL) § 349 – Deceptive Practices 5.Negligence 6. Unjust Enrichment 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. New York Civil Rights Law § 52-C – Private Right of Action for Unlawful Dissemination 9. Public Nuisance 10. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 11. Defamation per se 12. New York Civil Rights Law § 51 – Misappropriation | First Am. Complaint filed Feb. 3, 2026 |
| Doe v. xAI Corp. Jane Doe on behalf of adult women victimized by “nudified” deepfakes. It claims Grok generated millions of sexualized images of women and girls between late 2025 and early 2026. | N.D. Cal. | Pitts | 1. Strict Liability – Design Defect (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 2.Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect (in the alternative to the First Claim for Relief) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and 3. Negligence (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 4. Public Nuisance (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 5. Common Law Right of Privacy – Appropriation (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 6. Violation of California’s Statutory Right of Publicity Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class) 7. Defamation (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 9. Intrusion into Private Affairs (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class and, in the alternative, the South Carolina Subclass) 10. Violation of Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class) 11. Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class) | Complaint filed Jan. 23, 2026 |
| EU Data Privacy Investigation “The Data Protection Commission (DPC) has today announced that it has opened an inquiry into X Internet Unlimited Company (XIUC) under section 110 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The inquiry concerns the apparent creation, and publication on the X platform, of potentially harmful, non-consensual intimate and/or sexualised images, containing or otherwise involving the processing of personal data of EU/EEA data subjects, including children, using generative artificial intelligence functionality associated with the Grok large language model within the X platform.” | Ireland’s Data Protection Commission | Investigation opened Feb. 17, 2026 |