LONDON — The U.K. government’s upcoming ban on nudification apps won’t apply to general-purpose AI tools like Elon Musk’s Grok, according to Tech Secretary Liz Kendall. The ban will “apply to applications that have one despicable purpose only: to use generative AI to turn images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their permission,” Kendall said in a letter to Science, Innovation and Technology committee chair Chi Onwurah published Wednesday. Grok, which is made by Musk’s AI company xAI but is also accessible inside his social media platform X, has sparked a political uproar because it has been used to create a wave of sexualized nonconsensual deepfakes, many targeting women and some children. But Grok can be used to generate a wide range of images and has other functionalities, including text generation, so does not have the sole purpose of generating sexualized or nude images. The U.K. government announced its plan to ban nudification apps in December, before the Grok controversy took off, but Kendall has given it as an example of ways that the government is cracking down on AI-generated intimate image abuse. Kendall said the nudification ban will be put into effect using the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently passing through committee stage. The Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology did not immediately respond when contacted by POLITICO for comment. The U.K.’s media regulator Ofcom launched an investigation into X on Monday to determine whether the platform has complied with its duties under the Online Safety Act to protect British users from illegal content. The U.K, government has said Ofcom has its full support to use whatever enforcement tools it deems fit, which could include blocking X in the U.K. or issuing a fine.

LONDON — The U.S. Department of State’s Sarah B. Rogers says “nothing is off the table” if the U.K. government makes good on its threat to ban Elon Musk’s X over concerns about a deluge of AI-generated sexualized deepfakes on the platform. “I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech,” Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, told GB News in an interview which aired in the U.K. in the early hours of Tuesday morning. “Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response,” she added. Rogers, an appointee of President Donald Trump, has repeatedly criticized European efforts to crack down on hate speech. She was involved in last month’s State Department decision to sanction former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other European nationals involved in efforts to curb the spread of disinformation. At least one lawmaker aligned with Trump has also weighed in on behalf of the Elon Musk-owned platform. U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said last week she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X is banned in the country. In her GB News interview Rogers accused the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes.” X has a “political valence that the British government is antagonistic to, doesn’t like, and that’s what’s really going on,” she added. The U.S. embassy in London did not immediately respond when contacted by POLITICO for comment. Ofcom, the U.K.’s online safety watchdog, is currently investigating whether X failed to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act by allowing its Grok AI chatbot to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images, including potential child sexual abuse material. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told the House of Commons on Monday that Ofcom has the government’s backing to use the full extent of its powers, which include imposing financial penalties of up to £18 million or 10 percent of a company’s worldwide revenue, and in the most serious cases seeking a court order to block X from functioning in the U.K. “This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I and the whole Government hold very dear. It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It is about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online. It is about exercising our sovereign power and responsibility to uphold the laws of this land,” she said. At a behind-closed-doors meeting with Labour lawmakers on Monday Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “If X cannot control Grok, we will — and we’ll do it fast because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate.” POLITICO reported last week that Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy raised the issue of Grok with Vice President Vance, and Lammy later told The Guardian that Vance had agreed the deepfaked images spreading on X were “unacceptable.”

LONDON — U.K. ministers are warning Elon Musk’s X it faces a ban if it doesn’t get its act together. But outlawing the social media platform is easier said than done. The U.K.’s communications regulator Ofcom on Monday launched a formal investigation into a deluge of non-consensual sexualized deepfakes produced by X’s AI chatbot Grok amid growing calls for action from U.K. politicians. It will determine whether the creation and distribution of deepfakes on the platform, which have targeted women and children, constitutes a breach of the company’s duties under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA).   U.K. ministers have repeatedly called for Ofcom, the regulator tasked with policing social media platforms, to take urgent action over the deepfakes. U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall on Friday offered her “full support” to the U.K. regulator to block X from being accessed in the U.K., if it chooses to. “I would remind xAI that the Online Safety Act Includes the power to block services from being accessed in the U.K., if they refuse to comply with U.K. law. If Ofcom decide to use those powers they will have our full support,” she said in a statement. The suggestion has drawn Musk’s ire. The tech billionaire branded the British government “fascist” over the weekend, and accused it of “finding any excuse for censorship.”   With Ofcom testing its new regulatory powers against one of the most high-profile tech giants for the first time, it is hard to predict what happens next. NOT GOING NUCLEAR — FOR NOW   Ofcom has so far avoided its smash-glass option. Under the OSA it could seek a court order blocking “ancillary” services, like those those processing subscription payments on X’s behalf, and ask internet providers to block X from operating in the U.K.   Taking that route would mean bypassing a formal investigation, but that is generally considered a last resort according to Ofcom’s guidance. To do so, Ofcom would need to prove that risk of harm to U.K. users is particularly great.  Before launching its investigation Monday, the regulator made “urgent contact” with X on Jan. 5, giving the platform until last Friday to respond. Ofcom stressed the importance of “due process” and of ensuring its investigations are “legally robust and fairly decided.”   LIMITED REACH   The OSA only covers U.K. users. It’s a point ministers have been keen to stress amid concerns its interaction with the U.S. First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, could become a flashpoint in trade negotiations with Washington. It’s not enough for officials or ministers to believe X has failed to protect users generally.   The most egregious material might not even be on X. Child sexual abuse charity the Internet Watch Foundation said last week that its analysts had found what appeared to be Grok-produced Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on a dark web forum, rather than X itself — so it’s far from self-evident that Ofcom taking the nuclear option against X would ever have been legally justified.   X did not comment on Ofcom’s investigation when contacted by POLITICO, but referred back to a statement issued on Jan. 4 about the issue of deepfakes on the platform. “We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” the statement said. BIG TEST   The OSA came into force last summer, and until now Ofcom’s enforcement actions have focused on pornography site providers for not implementing age-checks.  Online safety campaigners have argued this indicates Ofcom is more interested in going after low-hanging fruit than challenging more powerful tech companies. “It has been striking to many that of the 40+ investigations it has launched so far, not one has been directed at large … services,” the online safety campaign group the Molly Rose Foundation said in September.   That means the X investigation is the OSA’s first big test, and it’s especially thorny because it involves an AI chatbot. The Science, Innovation and Technology committee wrote in a report published last summer that the legislation does not provide sufficient protections against generative AI, a point Technology Secretary Liz Kendall herself conceded in a recent evidence session.  POLITICAL RISKS  If Ofcom concludes X hasn’t broken the law there are likely to be calls from OSA critics, both inside and outside Parliament, to return to the drawing board. It would also put the government, which has promised to act if Ofcom doesn’t, in a tricky spot.  The PM’s spokesperson on Monday described child sexual abuse imagery as “the worst crimes imaginable.” Ofcom could also conclude X has broken the law, but decide against imposing sanctions, according to its enforcement guidance. The outcome of Ofcom’s investigation will be watched closely by the White House and is fraught with diplomatic peril for the U.K. government, which has already been criticized for implementing the new online safety law by Donald Trump and his allies. Foreign Secretary David Lammy raised the Grok issue with U.S. Vice President JD Vance last week, POLITICO reported.  But other Republicans are readying for a geopolitical fight: GOP Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a member of the U.S. House foreign affairs committee, said she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X does get blocked. 

LONDON — The U.K.’s communications watchdog Ofcom said Monday it has launched an investigation into Elon Musk’s social media platform X over reports that its AI chatbot Grok is producing non-consensual sexualized deepfakes of women and children. The investigation will ascertain whether the platform has complied with its duties under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act to protect British users from illegal content. “There have been deeply concerning reports of the Grok AI chatbot account on X being used to create and share undressed images of people — which may amount to intimate image abuse or pornography — and sexualized images of children that may amount to child sexual abuse material,” Ofcom said in a press release. This is a developing story.

LONDON – Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy raised the recent flood of AI-generated sexualized images of women and children on X with JD Vance when the two met in Washington yesterday, two people familiar with the meeting told POLITICO. One person familiar with the meeting said that Lammy raised the issue with Vance, explained the U.K.’s position, and repeated what Prime Minister Keir Starmer said about it. A second person familiar with the meeting said it had gone well, and that Vance seemed receptive to Lammy’s points. Both people were granted anonymity to speak freely about the meeting, which they weren’t authorized to discuss publicly. Vance’s team didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. A U.K. government spokesperson declined to comment. The flood of nonconsensual images on X, created using the platform’s generative AI chatbot feature Grok, attracted the attention of the U.K.’s media regulator Ofcom, which said it made “urgent contact” with X on Monday to determine whether an investigation under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act is warranted. On Friday an Ofcom spokesperson said: “We urgently made contact on Monday and set a firm deadline of today to explain themselves, to which we have received a response. We’re now undertaking an expedited assessment as a matter of urgency and will provide further updates shortly.” The U.S. administration has previously criticized the U.K.’s online safety laws, saying they limit freedom of expression. The U.K. government said this week that Ofcom had its full backing, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Thursday: “It’s disgraceful, it’s disgusting, and it’s not to be tolerated. X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action in relation to this.” “This is wrong, it’s unlawful, we’re not going to tolerate it. I’ve asked for all options to be on the table,” Starmer said. In a statement issued on Sunday, X said: “We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” On Friday X restricted the function which allows users to produce AI-generated material so that only paying subscribers can access it.  X said in a statement that limiting the feature to paid subscribers “helps ensure responsible use while we continue refining things.” The U.K. government disagrees. “That simply turns an AI feature that allows the creation of unlawful images into a premium service,” a spokesperson for the prime minister said on Friday. But it’s not only AI-generated images on X that are the problem, children’s protection watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation said on Wednesday it had found evidence of Grok generating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) which was being circulated on a dark web forum. X’s CEO and owner, tech billionaire Elon Musk, has previously attacked the U.K.’s Labour government and was once a close adviser of President Donald Trump. Although Musk feuded with the Trump administration in the summer, by October there were signs his relationship with Trump was improving, and The Washington Post reported last month that Vance brokered a truce between Musk and Trump. Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer attacked X’s decision to make its controversial AI image generation feature only available to users with paid subscriptions. In recent weeks X’s AI image generation feature has been used to produce a flood of nonconsensual sexualized images, including of women and children, drawing condemnation from lawmakers around the world. X said in a statement that limiting the feature to paid subscribers “helps ensure responsible use while we continue refining things.” The U.K. government disagrees. “That simply turns an AI feature that allows the creation of unlawful images into a premium service,” a spokesperson for the prime minister said on Friday. “It’s not a solution. In fact, it’s insulting to victims of misogyny and sexual violence. What it does prove is that X can move swiftly when it wants to do so,” they added. X has been approached for comment. Prime Minister Starmer said on Thursday that the issue of sexualized deepfakes proliferating on X was “disgraceful, it’s disgusting, and it’s not to be tolerated. X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action in relation to this.” The U.K.’s media regulator Ofcom said on Monday it was in urgent contact with X to ascertain whether an investigation under the Online Safety Act is warranted.

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday vowed to take action against Elon Musk’s social media platform X after its Grok artificial intelligence system produced a flood of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes that included depictions of minors. “It’s disgraceful, it’s disgusting, and it’s not to be tolerated. X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action in relation to this,” Starmer said in a broadcast interview after thousands of nude deepfakes were published on X. “This is wrong, it’s unlawful, we’re not going to tolerate it. I’ve asked for all options to be on the table,” he told the Greatest Hits Radio. “We will take action on this because it is simply not tolerable,” he added. Earlier this week the U.K.’s communications regulator Ofcom said it had made “urgent contact” with X to establish whether there are grounds to investigate the platform under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told MPs last year that current U.K. online safety laws do not cover all generative AI chatbots and she is looking at whether new legislation is required. The Information Commissioner’s Office, the U.K. data watchdog, confirmed yesterday that it too is in touch with X amid concerns people’s personal data is being misused. Musk has historically been highly critical of Starmer. Last January the tech billionaire made a series of unsubstantiated claims about the British PM’s role as chief prosecutor in the grooming gang scandal, and in summer 2024 suggested “civil war is inevitable” in the U.K.

LONDON — U.K. communications watchdog Ofcom is looking into whether X may be in breach of the Online Safety Act following a series of reports that its AI chatbot Grok generated sexually explicit images of children. Ofcom is also in touch with X about instances where Grok was used to generate non-consensual images of women naked. An Ofcom spokesperson said the regulator had made “urgent contact” with X and xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company which owns X, “to understand what steps they have taken to comply with their legal duties to protect users in the U.K.” “Based on their response we will undertake a swift assessment to determine whether there are potential compliance issues that warrant investigation,” the spokesperson said. X’s safety team said in a statement published over the weekend that the platform “take[s] action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. “Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

PARIS — French authorities will investigate the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence platform Grok on X, the Paris prosecutor’s office told POLITICO. French lawmakers Arthur Delaporte and Eric Bothorel contacted the prosecutor’s office on Jan. 2 after thousands of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes were generated by Grok and published on X. “These facts have been added to the existing investigation into X,” the prosecutor’s office stated, noting that this offense is punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a €60,000 fine. The two lawmakers confirmed to POLITICO that they had filed reports with the authorities. For the past two days, hundreds of women and teenagers have reported that their photos published on social media have been “undressed” by Grok — the artificial intelligence integrated into the social network X — at the request of users. These AI-generated photo montages “violate the dignity of the people depicted,” argues Delaporte in his letter to the public prosecutor, seen by POLITICO. When contacted by POLITICO, the French digital affairs office said three government ministers — Roland Lescure, economy and industry minister; Anne Le Hénanff, junior minister for artificial intelligence and digital affairs; and Aurore Bergé, equality minister — have reported “manifestly illegal content” to the public prosecutor and a government online surveillance platform Pharos, to “obtain its immediate removal.” France’s High Commissioner for Children, Sarah El Haïry, said she was “outraged” by these practices. The case will bolster the investigation already opened by the French cybercrime unit against X, which was expanded in November to include antisemitic and Holocaust denial statements disseminated by Grok. When contacted by POLITICO, X did not respond at the time of publication. A post by Grok on X in response to concerns about “extremely inappropriate” images of minors, said: “There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing.” “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely,” Grok said. The European Commission did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. Eliza Gkritsi contributed to this story.

LONDON — Australia hopes its teenage social media ban will create a domino effect around the world. Britain isn’t so sure.  As a new law banning under-16s from signing up to platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok comes into force today, U.K. lawmakers ten thousand miles away are watching closely, but not jumping in. “There are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. It’s important we protect children while letting them benefit safely from the digital world, without cutting off essential services or isolating the most vulnerable,” a No.10 spokesperson said Tuesday. Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents.  While England’s children’s commissioner and some MPs are supportive of a ban, neither the poll-topping Reform UK or opposition Conservative Party are pushing to mirror moves down under.  “We believe that bans are ineffective,” a Reform UK spokesperson said.  Even the usually Big Tech skeptic lobby groups have their doubts about the Australian model — despite strong public support to replicate the move in the U.K. Chris Sherwood, chief executive of the NSPCC, which has led the charge in pushing for tough regulation of social media companies over the last decade, said: “We must not punish young people for the failure of tech companies to create safe experiences online.  “Services must be accountable for knowing what content is being pushed out on their platforms and ensuring that young people can enjoy social media safely.” Andy Burrows, who leads the Molly Rose Foundation campaign group, argues the Australian approach is flawed and will push children to higher-risk platforms not included in the ban.  His charity was set up in 2018 in the name of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 while suffering from “depression and the negative effects of online content,” a coroner’s inquest concluded.  Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images “The quickest and most effective response to better protect children online is to strengthen regulation that directly addresses product safety and design risks rather than an overarching ban that comes with a slew of unintended consequences,” Burrows said.  “We need evidence-based approaches, not knee-jerk responses.” AUSSIE RULES Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. But insists: “We cannot control the ocean, but we can police the sharks.” She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.  “Parents shouldn’t have to fight billion-dollar companies to keep their kids safe online — the responsibility belongs with the platforms,” Inman Grant told Australia’s Happy Families podcast.  But the move does come with diplomatic peril. Inman Grant has not escaped the attention of the White House, which is pressuring countries to overturn tech regulations it views as unfairly targeting American companies.  U.S. congressman and Trump ally Jim Jordan has asked Inman Grant to testify before the Judiciary Committee he chairs, accusing her of being a “zealot for global [content] takedowns.” She hit back last week, describing the request as an example of territorial overreach.  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. It was the first to bring in a news media bargaining code to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers, and was the first major economy to rule out changing laws to let AI companies train on copyrighted material without permission. The U.K. has also upset the White House with its existing online safety measures, and the Trump administration said earlier this year it is monitoring freedom of speech concerns in the U.K. Australia is used to facing down the Big Tech lobby, explains Daniel Stone, who advised the ruling Labor Government on tech policy. “Julie has the benefit of knowing the [political] cabinet is fully supportive of her position,” he said. “It defines what’s permissible across the whole system.”  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images “If there is a lesson for the U.K., it is that you don’t have a strong regulator unless you have a strong political leader with a clear and consistent agenda,” Stone adds.  “Australia has its anxieties, too, about pushing U.S. tech companies, but they carry themselves with confidence,” said Stone. “You have to approach Trump from a position of strength.”  Rebecca Razavi, a former Australian diplomat, regulator and visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, agrees. “The thinking is, we’re a mid-sized economy and there’s this asymmetry with tech platforms dominating, and there’s actually a need to put things in place using an Australian approach to regulation,” she said.  Other countries, including Brazil, Malaysia and some European countries are moving in a similar direction. Last month the European Parliament called for a continent-wide age restriction on social media.  SLOW DOWN Others are biding their time.  The speed at which Australia’s social media ban was approved by parliament means that many of its pitfalls have not been explored, Razavi cautioned.  The legislation passed through parliament last December in 19 days with cross-party and wide public support. “It was really fast,” she said. “There was a feeling that this is something that parents care about. There’s also a deep frustration that the tech companies are just taking too long to make the reforms that are needed.”  But she added: “Some issues, such as how it works in practice, with age verification and data privacy are only being addressed now.”  Lizzie O’Shea, a human rights lawyer and founder of campaign group Digital Rights Watch, agreed. “There was very little time for consultation and engagement,” she said. “There has then subsequently been a lot of concerns about implementation. I worry about experimenting on particularly vulnerable people.”  For now, Britain and the world is watching to see if Australia’s new way to police social media delivers, or becomes an unworkable knee-jerk reaction.