The UK government condemns the proliferation of AI-generated images that depict women and children in sexualised and undressed forms, calling for swift platform action and stricter regulation to combat online harms.
The UK technology secretary, Liz Kendall, has condemned a wave of AI-generated images that digitally remove clothing from women and children as “appalling and unacceptable in decent society”, and urged X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, to “deal with this urgently”. She said she backed regulator Ofcom to “take any enforcement action it deems necessary” as the proliferation of intimate deepfakes has intensified concerns about online harms and the protection of children. According to The Guardian, Kendall warned the images were “disproportionately aimed at women and girls” and said the UK “will not tolerate the endless proliferation of disgusting and abusive material online”. [1][2]
Ofcom has confirmed it is aware of “serious concerns” about Grok, the AI developed by xAI and integrated into X, being used to create undressed images of people and sexualised images of children and has contacted X and xAI to understand what steps have been taken to meet legal duties in the UK. The regulator has the power to impose penalties up to £18m or 10% of qualifying global revenues, whichever is higher, and said it will assess whether an investigation is required based on the company’s response. Industry reporting notes ministers last month promised new laws to ban so-called “nudification” tools, though the timing for enforcement remains unclear. [1][3][5]
Survivors and campaigners described the government response as insufficient and slow. Jessaline Caine, a survivor of child sexual abuse, told The Guardian that Grok was still obeying prompts to manipulate an image of her as a three-year-old into a sexualised outfit on Tuesday morning, while identical requests to ChatGPT and Gemini were rejected. “Other platforms have these safeguards so why does Grok allow the creation of these images?” she said, calling the images “vile and degrading” and urging stronger regulation of AI tools. [1]
Campaigners including crossbench peer Beeban Kidron urged swifter, tougher enforcement and a reassessment of the Online Safety Act to make it “swifter and has more teeth”. According to The Guardian, Kidron said: “If any other consumer product caused this level of harm, it would already have been recalled.” She called on Ofcom to act “in days not years” and suggested users should abandon products that show “no serious intent to prevent harm to children, women and democracy”. [1]
Charities and security experts joined calls for immediate technical fixes. Sarah Smith, innovation lead at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, urged X to “immediately disable Grok’s image-editing features until robust safeguards are in place to stop this from happening again”. Jake Moore, global cybersecurity adviser at ESET, described the situation as a “tennis game” between platforms and regulators and criticised the “worryingly slow” government response, warning that as AI enables faked images to become longer videos the consequences for victims’ lives would worsen. “It is unbelievable that this is able to occur in 2026,” he said, arguing for “extreme regulation” to remove grey areas that will be abused. [1][5][7]
Legal experts note that it is already unlawful to create or share non-consensual intimate images or child sexual abuse material, and that many of the fake images may qualify under existing definitions of intimate or indecent images (for instance where breasts, buttocks or genitals are exposed or only covered by underwear). Yet campaigners stress that even images that fall short of statutory child sexual abuse material can be grievously harmful to privacy, dignity and safety. Lady Kidron told The Guardian that AI-generated pictures of children in bikinis “may not be child sexual abuse material but they were contemptuous of children’s privacy and agency” and warned of the chilling effect on ordinary family sharing online. [1]
X’s safety account has said the company removes illegal content, permanently suspends accounts involved in creating child sexual abuse material and works with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. The platform did not provide a further comment to The Guardian on the technology secretary’s remarks. Reporting from multiple outlets shows the controversy has prompted international scrutiny and renewed calls for clearer, faster regulation of generative AI and platform safety regimes. [1][3][4][6][7]
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [2] (The Guardian summary) – Paragraph 1
- [3] (ITV) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7
- [4] (Al Jazeera) – Paragraph 7
- [5] (Sky) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5
- [6] (Jerusalem Post) – Paragraph 7
- [7] (Washington Post) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
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:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the earliest known publication date being January 6, 2026. No evidence of recycled or republished content was found. The report is based on recent events and includes direct quotes from involved parties, indicating high freshness. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The narrative includes updated data and new material, justifying a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The direct quotes from Liz Kendall and other individuals are unique to this report, with no earlier matches found. The wording is consistent across sources, indicating originality. No variations in quote wording were noted.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Guardian, a reputable organisation known for its journalistic standards. The report is corroborated by multiple reputable outlets, including Al Jazeera and Sky News, enhancing its credibility.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and supported by multiple reputable sources. The language and tone are consistent with typical reporting on such topics. The narrative includes specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates, providing a clear and detailed account.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and originates from a reputable source. The claims are plausible and supported by multiple reputable outlets. No significant issues were identified, indicating a high level of credibility.
