# xAI Seeks to Unmask Deepfake Victims in Landmark Lawsuit **xAI**, the artificial intelligence company founded by **Elon Musk**, is pushing for the public identification of four individuals who claim they were targeted with deepfake sexualized images generated by its chatbot, **Grok**. These demands come as part of a federal class-action lawsuit, with newly filed court documents revealing the severe emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs. ## Plaintiffs Fear Doxing and Further Harassment The four main claimants, currently identified as **South Carolina Doe**, **South Carolina Roe**, **New Jersey Doe**, and **Ohio Doe**, submitted affidavits on May 29 detailing the emotional toll of the alleged deepfakes created earlier this year. They express profound fear of further online harassment and doxing should they be compelled to reveal their real names in the lawsuit against **xAI**. **Sophia Rios**, a lawyer representing the individuals for the legal firm **Berger Montague**, criticized **xAI**'s stance in a recent filing. "Having stripped them of their clothes, **xAI** now seeks to strip Plaintiffs of their pseudonyms in an obvious effort to intimidate Plaintiffs into dropping the litigation by compounding the same harms that they seek to remedy," Rios wrote. She added that **xAI**'s request suggests the "abuse it has perpetuated is no big deal." ## Grok's Controversial History with Deepfakes The controversy began in January when **Grok**, owned by **Musk**, sparked global outrage. Numerous users exploited the generative AI system to create nonconsensual deepfake images, primarily depicting women "undressed" or in bikinis. Disturbingly, some of these images appeared to sexualize children. Analysis from the **Center for Countering Digital Hate** claimed that **Grok** was used to generate approximately 3 million sexualized images over just 11 days, with 23,000 potentially involving children. Facing a wave of lawsuits and increasing regulatory scrutiny worldwide, **SpaceX**, which now owns **xAI**, has reportedly allocated over $500 million to manage the potential fallout from these issues. ## The Legal Battle Over Anonymity The class-action lawsuit against **xAI** was initially filed in January with a single pseudonymous lead claimant. A judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California approved an order allowing the use of a Jane Doe pseudonym. The case was later refiled in early May with the four current pseudonymous plaintiffs, with the original Jane Doe becoming **South Carolina Doe**. Plaintiffs' legal statements indicate a willingness to disclose their real names and personal information to **xAI** privately, but they insist on using pseudonyms in public filings to protect their privacy, avoid public association with the images, and mitigate further online harassment. The deepfake images themselves have not been included in public legal filings. In mid-May, **xAI** filed two motions with the federal district court, seeking to overturn the ruling that permitted the use of pseudonyms. **xAI**'s lawyers argue that civil court laws generally require all parties to be named, with exceptions being rare. They assert a public interest in the identities of those suing the company, claim no specific evidence of further harm has been presented, and suggest that keeping the deepfake images sealed should alleviate privacy concerns. "Factoring out the deepfake image itself—as it will remain under seal—there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about revealing the fact that a deepfake image was created of **South Carolina Doe** without revealing the image itself," **xAI**'s lawyers wrote in one May 15 filing. "As a result, this case simply does not involve the types of compelling privacy interests traditionally recognized as requiring pseudonymity." ## The Human Cost and Expert Opinion **Danielle Citron**, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law specializing in digital abuse, warns that forcing plaintiffs in privacy suits to reveal their names can lead to lawsuits being dropped, creating an "unacceptable and unjust" situation. "Forcing plaintiffs in privacy suits to sue in their names does so little for judicial transparency and so much to deter litigation," Citron stated. Indeed, all four pseudonymous claimants have indicated they would consider withdrawing from the proceedings if their names were to be publicly revealed. Their lawyers reiterated in recent filings that the case concerns "highly personal and embarrassing deepfakes depicting Plaintiffs that were disseminated without their consent." **South Carolina Doe** described discovering an alleged deepfake of themselves "stripped down to a revealing bikini" online, expressing disgust and fear about how employers or colleagues might react, and the potential for further online targeting. "I was also overcome with disgust at the thought of what the individual who had asked **Grok** to create the deepfake was doing with the photo," the affidavit reads. The filing further details the chilling prospect: "If I were forced to reveal my name publicly as part of this case, I would fear that those who support **Elon Musk**, his companies, and **Grok**, whom I have observed to be very vocal online, would find my name in the public record, disseminate it, dox me, and retaliate against me by creating additional and more extreme deepfakes of me." **New Jersey Doe**, a male plaintiff, recounted requesting that **Grok** not create images of him without consent, only to discover two deepfake images of himself the next day, one depicting him in a highly explicit manner. He believes his request to **Grok** inadvertently drew the attention of "online trolls" who then used the AI to harass him. In a particularly disturbing account, **South Carolina Roe** alleges that **Grok** was used to create explicit images of them as a child. Court filings state that in February, police searched **South Carolina Roe**'s home in connection with criminal charges against their father related to the possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). "I have learned that **Grok** altered several images depicting me in a bed with my father. **Grok** altered the images to make it appear as if we had just consummated a sexual act," the documents state, adding that the individual has not seen the images themselves. **South Carolina Roe** described being "distraught" and fears the images may be shared online by predators, asserting that "Publicly identifying me would cause me untold harm." The outcome of **xAI**'s motion to unmask these plaintiffs will have significant implications for privacy rights in the age of generative AI and deepfake technology.