Investigation into X’s AI chatbot Grok escalates as regulators probe its role in creating illegal content, prompting calls for stronger safeguards and accountability measures amidst public scepticism.
The public response to new safeguards added to X’s AI chatbot Grok has been broadly positive but sceptical, with many users telling The Independent that the changes were welcome yet long overdue and expressing doubt that restrictions will be properly enforced. The Independent’s outreach found a range of views on who should bear responsibility for harm from AI-generated content, with some arguing users must be held to account and others saying platforms themselves should face greater liability. Ofcom this week opened an investigation into Grok after reports it had been used to sexualise images of women and children. [1][2]
According to The Guardian, Ofcom is probing X under the Online Safety Act to assess whether the platform failed to protect users from illegal content, including non-consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material, and the regulator has powers to impose fines of up to 10% of worldwide turnover or, in extreme cases, remove services from the UK market. The UK government has publicly backed robust enforcement, with Technology Secretary Liz Kendall reportedly expressing support for the regulator’s action. [2][4]
The Internet Watch Foundation has reported investigators found material produced by Grok that included children aged around 11 to 13, which the IWF classifies as child sexual abuse material under UK law, intensifying scrutiny of the chatbot’s content-generation capabilities and the adequacy of its safeguards. Those findings have fed into calls for faster, stricter oversight of generative AI tools. [3]
X has said it will limit image-generation and editing features for Grok to paying subscribers, a move described in media accounts as part of a broader attempt to curb misuse. Critics and regulators have argued such steps are insufficient; reporting in The Guardian and the Washington Post highlighted that Grok’s “spicy mode”, designed to produce adult content, was exploited to create explicit images without consent, including sexualised depictions of minors. The company frames its recent measures as safeguards, but independent observers say they fall short of the controls needed to prevent illegal content creation and distribution. [4][5][7]
Many members of the public who responded to The Independent stressed a tension between personal responsibility and platform accountability. Some respondents said users should be taught and required to use tools responsibly,while others insisted platforms must be held to clear legal and technical standards and face meaningful penalties when those standards are not met. Doubts about enforcement, whether companies will follow through and whether regulators can move fast enough, were widespread. [1]
The controversy has not been confined to the UK. Reporting in the Washington Post and The Guardian documents parallel scrutiny and investigations in multiple countries, reflecting a broader international reckoning with how quickly AI tools have outpaced existing safeguards and regulation. Industry observers warn that piecemeal platform responses will not satisfy regulators or the public unless accompanied by transparent auditing, stronger content filters, and clearer accountability measures. [5][6][7]
The episode underscores a central regulatory challenge: balancing innovation in generative AI with protection from clear harms. As Ofcom’s formal review proceeds and the IWF’s findings circulate, the question for policymakers and platforms is whether current laws and voluntary company measures will be sufficient to prevent the creation and spread of exploitative material,or whether tougher statutory controls and enforcement will be required to safeguard users effectively. [1][2][3][5]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Independent) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [2] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7
- [3] (The Guardian / IWF report) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 7
- [4] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 4
- [5] (The Washington Post) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [6] (The Washington Post duplicate) – Paragraph 6
- [7] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the earliest known publication date of similar content being 6 days ago. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/grok-image-generator-outcry-sexualised-ai-imagery?utm_source=openai)) The report is based on a recent press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/14/elon-musk-grok-ai-explicit-images/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Direct quotes from the report are not found in earlier material, suggesting potential originality. However, similar information has been reported by other reputable outlets, indicating that the content is not entirely exclusive. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/grok-image-generator-outcry-sexualised-ai-imagery?utm_source=openai))
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a reputable UK news organisation, enhancing its reliability.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about Grok’s image generation capabilities and Ofcom’s investigation are plausible and align with recent reports from other reputable outlets. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/grok-image-generator-outcry-sexualised-ai-imagery?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, originates from a reputable source, and presents plausible claims that align with recent reports. No significant issues were identified, and the content is accessible for full verification.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
