Generating key takeaways...
X has limited its Grok AI image generation and editing features to paying subscribers following widespread criticism over the creation of explicit and potentially illegal deepfake images, prompting international scrutiny and calls for tighter governance.
X has restricted image generation and editing on its Grok AI to paying subscribers after a wave of criticism over the tool’s use to create sexually explicit deepfakes, particularly images that digitally remove clothing from women and, in some reports, appear to involve minors. According to The Daily Jagran, the change followed mounting public outrage and what the report described as alleged pressure from UK authorities. [1]
The limitation is platform-specific: paid, verified X accounts can still request image edits within X, while non-paying users retain access to Grok’s image features via the standalone Grok app and website. That distinction has prompted questions about how effective the move will be in stemming abuse. Industry reporting noted that the feature’s prior design , including the public display of generated images and a so-called “spicy mode” , exacerbated the spread of explicit content. [1][4][2]
Government and regulatory bodies in Europe and beyond have reacted strongly. The European Commission condemned the images as “illegal,” “appalling,” and “disgusting,” and has opened inquiries; it has also demanded that X retain all Grok-related data through 2026 as part of a broader probe under digital safety rules, according to AP and Axios. Investigations are reported to be under way in multiple countries, including France, Malaysia, India and Brazil. [2][3]
In the UK, Ofcom and government officials have warned of fines, regulatory action or restrictions under the Online Safety Act if platforms fail to address intimate-image abuse. The Guardian explained that while the Online Safety Act imposes duties on platforms to act, other measures , such as a separate Data (Use and Access) Act that would criminalise creating or requesting “nudified” images , are not yet in force, complicating enforcement against individual creators. [1][5]
Women who say they were targeted by AI-driven edits have described serious harm. The Daily Jagran and BBC reporting cited affected women who said they felt humiliated and dehumanised, contributing to calls for tighter governance of generative AI tools. Those accounts helped spur political reactions, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying on radio: ‘X need to get their act together and get this material down. And we will take action on this because it’s simply not tolerable.’ [1][6]
X’s decision to restrict image capabilities to subscribers has reduced some explicit outputs, but critics and regulators argue the changes do not go far enough because alternate routes on X’s desktop site and app, and the separate Grok app, still permit creation or sharing of such images. Reporting by AP and Axios characterised the restrictions as a partial response that left legal and safety questions unresolved. [2][3]
X has not published a detailed public justification for the policy shift; company statements cited in coverage framed the measure as a product adjustment to address misuse. Journalistic coverage underscores a wider debate about platform responsibility, the speed of AI product roll-outs, and whether current laws and enforcement mechanisms are adequate to prevent intimate-image abuse facilitated by generative AI. [1][2][5]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Daily Jagran) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7
- [2] (AP) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [3] (Axios) – Paragraph 3, Paragraph 6
- [4] (Al Jazeera) – Paragraph 2
- [5] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 7
- [6] (Dexerto) – Paragraph 5
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 9, 2026. Multiple reputable sources, including AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/2bfa06805b323b1d7e5ea7bb01c9da77?utm_source=openai)) and Axios ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2026/01/09/musk-grok-explicit-images-restrictions?utm_source=openai)), have reported on this development today. The report is not recycled or republished from low-quality sites. The information appears to be based on recent events, with no discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
Direct quotes from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier are consistent across multiple reputable sources, indicating originality and accuracy. For example, Starmer’s statement, ‘X need to get their act together and get this material down. And we will take action on this because it’s simply not tolerable,’ is reported by AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/2bfa06805b323b1d7e5ea7bb01c9da77?utm_source=openai)). No variations in wording or discrepancies have been found.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Daily Jagran, a reputable news outlet. The Associated Press, Axios, and other established media have corroborated the information, lending credibility to the report. There are no indications of unverifiable entities or fabricated information.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims are plausible and supported by multiple reputable sources. The European Commission’s condemnation of the images as ‘illegal,’ ‘appalling,’ and ‘disgusting’ is reported by AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/2bfa06805b323b1d7e5ea7bb01c9da77?utm_source=openai)). The UK’s response, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement, is consistent across sources. The narrative includes specific factual anchors, such as dates, names, and institutions, enhancing its credibility. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic, and there is no excessive or off-topic detail.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and supported by multiple reputable sources. Direct quotes are consistent across outlets, and the information is corroborated by established media. There are no indications of recycled content, unverifiable entities, or fabricated information. The claims are plausible, with specific factual anchors and consistent language and tone.
