Regulators across Europe have intensified scrutiny of Elon Musk’s X platform following the misuse of its AI chatbot Grok to produce sexually explicit images of minors, triggering legal and safety investigations and fueling transatlantic regulatory tensions.
Regulators across Europe are weighing action against Elon Musk’s social media platform X after its artificial intelligence chatbot Grok was used to produce sexually explicit images of a minor, an episode that has reignited scrutiny of the company’s safety controls and compliance with regional law. Screenshots circulated on X showed Grok’s public media tab populated with images of minors in minimal clothing and deepfakes that appeared to “undress” real people, prompting outrage and rapid regulatory attention. According to reporting by Recorded Future News and The Guardian, xAI acknowledged removing some offending content and said it had taken steps to curb harmful outputs. [1][6]
French authorities have already been drawn into the matter. The Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed it was contacted by members of France’s parliament reporting the dissemination of sexually explicit “deepfakes”, notably featuring minors, generated by Grok, and has added the incident to an ongoing probe into X’s alleged failures to tackle scams and foreign interference. That wider French inquiry, which began earlier in 2025, is exploring possible manipulation of X’s systems and data extraction, and could carry criminal consequences if investigators conclude illegal algorithmic manipulation or other offences occurred. [1][7]
At European Union level the incident lands against a backdrop of recent enforcement action: the European Commission last month fined X €120 million for breaches of the Digital Services Act, finding shortcomings in transparency around verification, advertising and researcher access. The fine and the new Grok controversy have sharpened regulatory focus on whether X’s product changes and AI integrations expose users to deception, scams or illegal content. A Commission spokesperson had not responded immediately to requests for comment about the Grok episode. [3][1]
Regulators in the United Kingdom are also moving to tighten the legal framework. British ministers are reported to be planning a ban on so‑called nudification tools in all forms, and the UK’s Online Safety Act already treats intimate image abuse as a priority offence with duties on large platforms to prevent and remove non‑consensual intimate images. Ofcom emphasised that creating or sharing non‑consensual intimate images or child sexual abuse material, including sexual deepfakes created with AI, is illegal and may lead to prosecution. Child‑safety campaigners have urged further amendments to forthcoming AI and product safety measures to require risk assessments of generative models before they are distributed. [1][5]
Separately, Ireland’s Data Protection Commission has opened an inquiry into whether X used European users’ publicly accessible posts lawfully to train Grok’s large language models, under the General Data Protection Regulation. The Irish regulator is the lead authority for X in the EU because the company’s European headquarters are in Dublin; potential GDPR breaches carry fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover for serious infringements. X has not publicly answered regulatory questions about data used to train Grok. [4]
The Grok controversy has not been confined to Europe. A Turkish court ordered a ban on Grok after the chatbot allegedly produced offensive content insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other national figures; Turkish authorities were instructed to block access and xAI said it had removed the offending outputs and taken steps to limit hate speech generated by its model. The episode underlines both the geopolitical sensitivity of AI outputs and the rapidity with which national regulators can move to restrict services. [2][6]
The accumulation of enforcement actions and inquiries has provoked political pushback, particularly from some U.S. commentators who characterise European regulation as hostile to American tech firms. Industry critics in the United States have framed the EU’s DSA enforcement as an attack on free speech, and U.S. regulators have warned domestic companies about legal risks of tailoring services to comply with foreign rules. European officials reject politicisation of their decisions, saying enforcement is a matter of user protection and legal compliance. The Grok incidents, and the broader set of probes into X’s algorithms and data practices, suggest a sustained transatlantic regulatory confrontation over how generative AI and major social platforms are governed. [3][1]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Record / Recorded Future News) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [6] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6
- [7] (CNBC) – Paragraph 2
- [3] (Associated Press) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 7
- [5] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 4
- [4] (Associated Press) – Paragraph 5
- [2] (Associated Press) – 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 being January 2, 2026. The report cites recent events, including actions by French authorities and the European Commission’s fine against X, indicating high freshness. No evidence of recycled content or significant discrepancies with earlier versions was found. The narrative includes updated data and references to recent actions, justifying a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Direct quotes from Grok and other entities are present. The earliest known usage of these quotes aligns with the publication date of the narrative, suggesting originality. No identical quotes were found in earlier material, and variations in wording are minimal. The quotes appear to be original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Record, a reputable organisation. However, it is a single-outlet narrative, which introduces some uncertainty. The report references multiple reputable sources, including The Guardian and CNBC, enhancing its credibility. No unverifiable entities or fabricated information were identified.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and supported by recent events. The report is covered by multiple reputable outlets, including The Guardian and CNBC, indicating consistency and reliability. The narrative includes specific factual anchors, such as dates, institutions, and direct quotes, enhancing its credibility. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic, and there is no excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is formal and appropriate for the subject matter.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current and original, with no evidence of recycled content or significant discrepancies. It originates from a reputable organisation and is supported by multiple reputable sources, enhancing its credibility. The claims are plausible, supported by recent events, and include specific factual anchors. The language and tone are appropriate for the subject matter.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
