xAI asks court to keep deepfake victims unnamed

xAI asks – xAI has asked a court to deny anonymity to claimants in a South Carolina deepfake lawsuit tied to Grok, arguing that revealing only the fact that a deepfake was created—without showing the image—should not require pseudonyms. Victims, including a South Carolin

On paper, xAI’s request reads like a narrow technical fix. In a May 15 filing. the company’s lawyers argued that if the alleged deepfake image itself stays under seal. then revealing only that a deepfake was created of a “South Carolina Doe” should not trigger the kind of privacy protections that allow people to sue under pseudonyms.

“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. ” the lawyers wrote in the filing. They added that “this case simply does not involve the types of compelling privacy interests traditionally recognized as requiring pseudonymity.”.

xAI and lawyers representing the company did not respond to a request for comment about the case.

Behind the legal framing is a fear that claimants say they cannot afford to take lightly. Danielle Citron. a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has specialized in tackling digital abuse. said civil cases where people are ordered to sue using their real names can end up with lawsuits being dropped. For her, the result is both practical and unfair.

“unacceptable and unjust,” she said, “Forcing plaintiffs in privacy suits to sue in their names does so little for judicial transparency and so much to deter litigation.”

The lawsuit centers on four pseudonyms for claimants, and in legal filings dated May 29, all four say they would consider leaving the case if their names had to be revealed.

In those most recent filings, lawyers for the claimants urged the court to deny xAI’s request and said the suit involves “highly personal and embarrassing deepfakes depicting Plaintiffs that were disseminated without their consent.”

The “South Carolina Doe” described what she says she discovered online: an alleged deepfake that she says appears “stripped down to a revealing bikini.” In her description of the image, she says it shows her body “in a way that I would not ever share publicly.”

She said she was worried about what employers or colleagues would think if they saw it, and she feared she would be targeted further online.

“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,” she wrote in the filing.

Her most detailed warning was about what would happen if the court required her name to become public. In that filing. she wrote: “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.”.

Other claimants describe similar emotional reactions—“severe emotional distress,” embarrassment, and shock at seeing images made without their consent. The filing language connects those experiences to a broader pattern described by other victims of deepfake sexual abuse and nonconsensual imagery.

One claimants using the pseudonym “New Jersey Doe” said they saw people on X using Grok to generate sexualized images and posted a request that “Grok not create images of me without my consent.” The next day. court records say. they found two deepfake images of themselves. including one depicting them “spreading his butt cheeks.”.

They wrote that they believed their message to Grok—asking it not to create deepfakes of them—“brought my account to the attention of online trolls that were using Grok to harass and cause distress.”

Between xAI’s position and the claimants’ response, the dispute isn’t just about what stays sealed. It’s about whether the public record should include identities tied to alleged nonconsensual sexual deepfakes—something each side treats as the deciding line.

For xAI, the company’s lawyers argued that keeping the image itself under seal removes the core harm. For the claimants, what happens after names become public is the harm: exposure, doxing, retaliation, and more extreme deepfakes.

The court now has to decide whether the case can proceed with anonymity protections that allow claimants to avoid being named, or whether those identities must enter the open—at a cost the plaintiffs say they’re not prepared to bear.

xAI Grok deepfake lawsuit pseudonymity anonymity Danielle Citron nonconsensual imagery doxxing cybersecurity AI abuse