View source for Doe v X.AI Corp

<!-- AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->
<div class="ailaw-case-layout" style="display:flex;flex-direction:row-reverse;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:1.5em;align-items:flex-start;">
<div class="ailaw-case-sidebar" style="flex:0 1 22em;max-width:100%;min-width:0;">

{| class="wikitable ailaw-case-info" style="width:100%;margin:0;"
|+ style="font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;padding:0.5em;" | Case Information
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case name
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Doe v. X.AI Corp<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b">[https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Doe-v-xAI-Amended-Complaint-7-7-26.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Court
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Docket
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | 5:26-cv-02246-PCP<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Filed
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | March 16, 2026<ref name="case-record-f8c3f5850f9711d2">[https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Doe-v-xAI-Complaint-3-16-26.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Judge(s)
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | P. Casey Pitts (PCP on the amended complaint)<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" /><ref name="case-record-21046816fed8e3f8">[https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/pcp/pitts-p-casey Case source, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Plaintiffs
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Jane Does 1–5 (pseudonymous plaintiffs)<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Defendants
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | X.AI Corp.; X.AI LLC; X.AI Holdings LLC; Stability AI U.S. Services Corp.; Stability AI, Inc.<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case type
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Proposed civil class action<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Claims / issues
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Claims concerning AI-generated child sexual abuse material, exploitation and product liability<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Status
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | July 7, 2026: first amended class complaint added Stability AI entities. Later developments have not been verified.<ref name="case-record-2a3d19b769933f9b" />
|}

</div>
<div class="ailaw-case-article" style="flex:1 1 28em;min-width:0;overflow-wrap:anywhere;">

'''Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp.''' (Case No. 5:26-cv-02246, N.D. Cal.) is a class action lawsuit filed on March 16, 2026, alleging that xAI's Grok AI model generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) deepfakes using real photographs of minors.<ref name="lieffcabraser">[https://www.lieffcabraser.com/2026/03/lchb-files-class-action-obo-minor-victims-alleging-xais-grok-generated-and-profited-from-ai-sexual-exploitation-images-and-videos/ Lieff Cabraser, "LCHB Files Class Action o/b/o Minor Victims Alleging xAI's Grok Generated and Profited from AI Sexual Exploitation Images and Videos," March 2026]</ref><ref name="prokopiev">[https://www.prokopievlaw.com/post/minors-file-class-action-against-xai-over-grok-csam-deepfakes-in-california-march-2026 Prokopiev Law, "Minors File Class Action Against xAI Over Grok CSAM Deepfakes in California," March 2026]</ref>

== Parties ==

=== Plaintiffs ===
* '''Jane Doe 1''' — minor whose real image was used to generate CSAM via Grok
* '''Jane Doe 2''' — minor victim
* '''Jane Doe 3''' — minor victim
* '''Putative class''': All U.S. persons whose real minor images were altered by Grok into sexualized images or videos<ref name="lieffcabraser" />

=== Defendants ===
* '''X.AI Corp.'''<ref name="prokopiev" />
* '''X.AI LLC'''<ref name="prokopiev" />
* '''Stability AI''' — added as a defendant in the July 8, 2026 amended complaint.<ref name="lieff-amended">[https://www.lieffcabraser.com/2026/07/deepfake-victims-bolster-class-action-against-xai-add-stability-ai/ Lieff Cabraser, "Deepfake Victims Bolster Class Action Against xAI, Add Stability AI" (July 8, 2026).]</ref>

Counsel for plaintiffs: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.<ref name="lieffcabraser" />

== Court ==

* '''Court''': U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division)<ref name="prokopiev" />
* '''Judge''': Not yet assigned; plaintiffs filed motion to relate case to prior matter for potential same-judge assignment (Docket No. 3)<ref name="prokopiev" />

== Claims ==

* '''Masha's Law''' (18 U.S.C. § 2255) — civil remedy for child sexual exploitation victims<ref name="lieffcabraser" />
* '''Trafficking Victims Protection Act'''<ref name="lieffcabraser" />
* '''California state law claims''' — negligence, products liability<ref name="prokopiev" />

'''Relief sought''': Damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.<ref name="lieffcabraser" />

== Factual Background ==

The complaint alleges that Grok's "Spicy Mode" — a feature restricted to paid subscribers — enabled users to upload real photographs of minors and generate photorealistic nude and sexually explicit images and videos.<ref name="lieffcabraser" /> Reports indicate Grok generated approximately '''3 million sexualized images''' and '''23,000 apparent child depictions''' in late 2025–early 2026 before xAI restricted the feature after public exposure.<ref name="lieffcabraser" /><ref name="cybernews">[https://cybernews.com/ai-news/teens-sue-xai-grok-ai-generated-child-porn/ Cybernews, "Teens sue xAI: Grok AI-generated child porn," March 2026]</ref>

The California Attorney General launched an investigation into xAI/Grok on January 14, 2026, citing nonconsensual deepfake intimate images of women, girls, and children.<ref name="agpress">[https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-launches-investigation-xai-grok-over-undressed-sexual-ai California AG Press Release, January 14, 2026]</ref>

One perpetrator who used Grok to generate CSAM was arrested; CSAM was reported to NCMEC.<ref name="lieffcabraser" />

== Procedural History ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date !! Docket No. !! Event
|-
| March 16, 2026 || 1 || Complaint filed (44 pages; filing fee $405; nature of suit 360 P.I.: Other Personal Injury)<ref name="prokopiev" />
|-
| March 16, 2026 || 3 || Motion to relate case to prior matter filed<ref name="prokopiev" />
|}

No answer, motion to dismiss, or other responsive filing by xAI has been reported as of April 2026.<ref name="prokopiev" />

== Significance ==

This is one of the first class action lawsuits alleging that an AI model directly generated CSAM from real minors' images, raising novel questions about:
* AI company liability for model outputs that violate federal child exploitation laws
* Adequacy of safety guardrails in commercial AI products
* Scope of civil remedies under Masha's Law and the TVPA for AI-generated CSAM
* Product liability theories applied to generative AI

== Related Cases ==

* '''[[News xAI-v-Bonta-California-AI-Transparency-Ruling-2026|xAI v. Bonta]]''' — xAI's challenge to California AI Transparency Law (separate proceeding)


== July 2026 amended complaint ==
On July 8, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new minor plaintiffs and naming Stability AI as a defendant.<ref name="lieff-amended" /> The amended complaint alleges that xAI failed to provide user-identifying information in CyberTipline reports and that Stability AI models enabled downstream nudification applications used to generate CSAM.<ref name="lieff-amended" /> Ars Technica reported that the amendment included allegations that one perpetrator used Grok to create roughly 7,000 sexually explicit images from a photograph of an 11-year-old child.<ref name="ars-amended">[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/lawsuit-grok-user-made-7k-child-sex-images-xai-only-reported-one-gang-rape-prompt/ Ars Technica, "Lawsuit: Man used Grok to make 7K sex images of stepdaughter, then shot himself" (July 8, 2026).]</ref>

== References ==
<references />

</div>
</div>
<!-- /AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->

[[Category:Child Safety]]
[[Category:Deepfakes]]
[[Category:Data Privacy]]
[[Category:Cases Against xAI]]