DOE v. X.AI Corp.

The Complaint alleges that X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC developed and deployed an artificial intelligence model called "Grok" that generates content based on user prompts. Complaint contends that whilst industry-standard safeguards exist to prevent AI systems from creating child sexual abuse material, Defendants deliberately chose not to implement such protections. Instead, the Complaint alleges that Defendants marketed Grok's ability to produce "spicy" content as a competitive advantage and profit centre.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants introduced Grok to the market and specifically designed it to generate sexualised content that other AI systems would refuse to create. The Complaint contends that Defendants continue to profit from Grok's ability to produce such material through licensing arrangements and direct user subscriptions. It is further alleged that this business model depends upon Grok's capacity to generate content that violates both legal standards and industry norms.

Further, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 discovered that Grok had generated sexually explicit images depicting her without her knowledge or consent. Similarly, that Plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3, both minors, suffered harm when Grok created sexualised depictions of them. It is alleged that these AI-generated images constitute child sexual abuse material under federal law and have caused severe psychological harm to the Plaintiffs.

The Complaint asserts thirteen causes of action: (1) production with intent to distribute child pornography under Masha's Law, 18 U.S.C. sections 2255(a) and 2252A(a)(7); (2) distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. sections 2255(a) and 2252A(a)(2); (3) possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. sections 2255(a) and 2252A(a)(5)(B); (4) beneficiary liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 1595, 1594, and 1591(a)(2); (5) violation of California's statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code section 3344; (6) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (7) strict liability for design defect; (8) negligent design defect; (9) negligent undertaking; (10) negligence per se; (11) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (13) public nuisance. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive relief requiring implementation of CSAM prevention measures, restitution of profits derived from the allegedly unlawful conduct, and attorney's fees.