— Grok (@grok) January 5, 2026 Yet the Centre for Policy Studies questioned whether Ofcom can go far enough to protect users. The think-tank’s communication and digital manager, MeIisa Tourt, said Grok forging non-consensual images is outside the scope of the law. ‘The OSA’s remit is strictly limited to user-to-user and search services, meaning it does not regulate AI models themselves until their output is shared,’ she told Metro. ‘To complicate matters, the OSA mandates that platforms treat “bots” as normal users, meaning that while a human might prompt a deepfake, the legal act of “sharing” is often performed by the platform’s own @Grok account. ‘This creates a regulatory blind spot that Ofcom may struggle to navigate with current enforcement tools.’ Tourt added that the law is murky around ‘deepfakes’ as it excludes images that show something ‘originally seen in public’, such as a bikini. ‘We risk ending up in a bizarre situation where posting a real non-consensual image of someone in a bikini is legal, but generating a fake one could theoretically carry a two-year prison sentence,’ she said. Sexualised deepfakes ‘amount to a serious breach of privacy’ Grok is a type of generative AI that ingests information from datasets to learn patterns of how humans write, make images and film videos. Clare Veal, a commercial solicitor at the Surrey-based firm Aubergine Legal, told Metro that AI tools like Grok don’t have a ‘moral judgement’. ‘That’s why platforms have a legal and ethical responsibility to build in guardrails,’ she said. 'It made me feel exposed and powerless' Among those who say users have asked Grok to create phoney images of them is Ruben Chorlton-Owen, a content creator from Wales. He told Metro: ‘Some of my photos from Instagram have been used by AI to create bizarre and sexualised images of me in outfits I never agreed to, including “transparent outfits” and other dodgy combinations. ‘These images were often forwarded to me by others, which was both unsettling and surreal.’ Ruben Chorlton-Owen said his Instagram images have been edited (Picture: Ruben Chorlton-Owen) In one exchange seen by Metro, a troll asked Grok to strip Ruben, with the bot making a synthetic image of the musician shirtless. Under xAI’s acceptable use and privacy policies, users are prohibited from creating or sharing content that harms people. But Ruben, 24, questioned whether X’s policies were robust enough. ‘It made me feel exposed and powerless, and highlighted how little control people have over their own images once online and myself as a content creator, whose photos are already accessible,’ he added. ‘When an AI chatbot is asked to “undress” a woman or a man and it complies, the harm is not hypothetical. ‘It is producing a sexualised deepfake of a real person without their consent and in UK law that can amount to a serious breach of privacy, data protection rights and potentially criminal law. ‘There are also data protection implications. Using a person’s likeness to generate sexualised content without consent can constitute unlawful processing of biometric data. ‘From a civil law perspective, individuals may have claims for misuse of private information or harassment.’ There is also a gap in law regarding AI images in the US, David Dozier, an attorney and managing partner at the law firm Dozier Law, told Metro. He said: ‘Despite there being no federal law making it illegal, other laws cover the activity. Grok hoovers up huge amounts of data to ‘learn’ how to create content (Picture: Getty Images) ‘Provocative, sexualised photos or those that damage reputations can also result in claims involving defamation, invasion of privacy or misappropriation of likeness. ‘Often it is the impact, not the intent, that counts.’ Elon Musk: Users will face ‘consequences’ for making illicit pictures Technology Secretary Liz Kendal has called on X to deal with Grok’s ‘appalling and unacceptable’ image generation. Kendal said today: ‘No one should have to go through the ordeal of seeing intimate deepfakes of themselves online.