The UK’s Ofcom launches a major investigation into AI‑generated sexualised and violent images on X, amid growing international scrutiny and regulatory efforts to curb the spread of harmful deepfake content created by AI tools.
The surge of AI‑generated images on X (formerly Twitter) depicting women and children in bikinis, often sexualised or injured, has provoked an unprecedented regulatory response and posed a stark test of democratic control over the biggest technology platforms, according to The Guardian. The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, announced an investigation under the Online Safety Act, a move the newspaper described as the regulator’s most combative action since key provisions of the law came into force and one that could define how far wealthy tech companies submit to democratic oversight. [1]
Ofcom’s intervention follows X owner Elon Musk’s decision to limit the image‑making capabilities of the Grok AI chatbot to paying subscribers, a move Downing Street criticised as effectively turning the creation of abusive deepfakes into a “premium service”. That restriction has reduced some anonymity around who generates images but has not halted the spread of manipulated material or the international outcry it prompted. According to reporting by Tom’s Guide and Axios, the change was seen as insufficient by many regulators and rights groups. [4][5]
The reaction has not been limited to the UK. Indonesia and Malaysia temporarily blocked access to Grok after regulators said the chatbot was being used to produce non‑consensual sexual imagery and violated citizens’ privacy and dignity. Officials in both countries stated the measures were intended to protect women, children and the wider community from fake pornographic content generated with AI, and demanded stronger safeguards before reinstating access. AP and regional reporting confirmed those restrictions and the grounds cited by the governments. [3][6][7]
The controversy highlights gaps in existing law and content moderation practices. The Guardian’s editorial flagged an inconsistency in UK rules that treats images of people in swimwear differently from images of people in underwear, despite similar levels of coverage, and urged ministers to address age limits and the design of AI tools as separate but related policy issues. Industry observers say the online safety regime is among the world’s most advanced, but that legislators failed to anticipate the rapid rollout of image‑editing AI features with real‑world harms. [1]
Legal and policy questions are now converging with commercial competition between AI firms. Musk has argued that Grok must be competitive with systems such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and some industry reports suggest OpenAI may enable generation of erotic material via ChatGPT in the near future, raising fears that deepfake pornography could become more widespread if multiple platforms permit such content. Axios and Tom’s Guide noted growing concern among lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic about how quickly image‑based abuses could proliferate. [5][4]
Regulators and governments are signalling they will move faster. The UK technology secretary, Liz Kendall, said a promised ban on non‑consensual intimate images will come into force imminently and that nudification apps will be outlawed quickly, while EU and national ministers elsewhere have urged collective action against the “industrialisation of sexual harassment”. AP reported that France has also flagged legal concerns, and regional authorities in Asia have already taken concrete enforcement steps. These developments indicate a shift from rhetorical criticism to regulatory containment. [1][3][6]
The immediate test will be whether Ofcom’s investigation leads to effective enforcement and whether international coordination can close loopholes exploited by bad actors or by platforms reluctant to change product designs. For now, industry data, regulatory moves in multiple jurisdictions and outspoken government statements underscore a rare moment of alignment between public authorities and civil society demanding that technology companies be made accountable for how their AI tools are used. [4][5][3]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6
- [4] (Tom’s Guide) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [3] (Associated Press) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [6] (The Guardian technology) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6
- [7] (KHSU) – Paragraph 3
- [5] (Axios) – Paragraph 2, 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 article published on 12 January 2026. No evidence of recycled content or significant discrepancies with earlier versions.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes identified in the provided text. The content appears original without reused quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Guardian, a reputable UK-based newspaper known for its journalistic standards.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims align with recent developments regarding AI-generated deepfake images and regulatory responses. No inconsistencies or implausible elements identified.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and sourced from a reputable organisation. It presents plausible claims consistent with recent events and is freely accessible. The content type is appropriate for an opinion piece, and no significant issues were identified.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
