Skip to main content
NOPE
High reported severity Involving minors Lawsuit Filed

Doe v. ClothOff (D.N.J.): a New Jersey minor sues the AI 'undressing' platform over generated CSAM

On 16 October 2025, Jane Doe, a New Jersey minor suing through her parents, filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC) against the operators of ClothOff, an AI 'undressing' service, after ClothOff-generated sexual images of her — created from an ordinary photo of her at 14 — circulated in a Snapchat group when she was 15. The complaint, brought by Yale Law School clinics, alleges the platform was purpose-built to produce hyper-realistic non-consensual intimate imagery and names AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), Alaiksandr Babichau and Dasha Babicheva (Minsk), and Telegram as nominal defendant. As of mid-July 2026 the docket shows a continuing effort to serve the foreign defendants by email or publication.

AI system
ClothOff
AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. d/b/a ClothOff (BVI); operators identified in reporting as based in Minsk, Belarus
Occurred
20 Oct 2023 to 16 Oct 2025
Reported
16 October 2025
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Psychological DistressReputational Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Education · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 7 sources, 6 underlying accounts
6 claims: 4 documented, 1 corroborated, 1 disputed. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: ClothOff (AI undressing service)

What Happened

According to the complaint (¶¶33-40), on 20 October 2023 Doe, then 15, learned that ClothOff-generated child sexual abuse material of her and 'several other girls in her class' was circulating in a Snapchat group; the source was an ordinary photo of her at age 14 from Instagram, uploaded by a minor classmate. TechCrunch reports from the complaint that local authorities declined prosecution. The complaint (filed 16 October 2025 in the D.N.J. before Judge Esther Salas and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark) alleges ClothOff is a purpose-built 'undress' service producing hyper-realistic output 'indistinguishable from real photographs' without a watermark in three clicks, with at least 27 million visitors and about 200,000 images per day, at least ten affiliated services, Telegram bots and an API (¶¶1-6, 54-55, 220-255, 695-697). It names AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. d/b/a ClothOff (Tortola, BVI), Alaiksandr Babichau and Dasha Babicheva (of Minsk, described as developing, maintaining and profiting from the service), and Telegram Group Inc./Telegram Messenger Inc. as nominal defendants. The Guardian's Black Box investigation (29 February 2024) had named Babichau and Babicheva, a fake AI 'CEO', the Texture Oasis payment front and GGSel/GG Technology links, tying ClothOff to the Almendralejo (Spain) and Westfield NJ school incidents; Bellingcat's independent investigation (23 February 2024) mapped the same network and its payment laundering. The suit seeks pseudonymity, deletion and destruction of the CSAM including Doe's, a bar on training AI on her images, permanent injunctions against operating or marketing any CSAM/NCII service, and injunctions binding registries, hosts, payment processors and platforms including Telegram. The 2026 docket shows service difficulties: a Rule 4(m) call for dismissal on 24 June 2026 (service not effected; pseudonym motion administratively terminated), vacated by Judge Salas on 29 June after the plaintiff showed ongoing foreign-service efforts, an order allowing service by email on 8 July, and a motion for service by publication or by email filed 9 July, set for decision on 3 August 2026; the RECAP mirror ends 15 July 2026 with no default judgment, dismissal or service resolution visible. X, Discord, Google and YouTube removals are confirmed by Yale (summer 2025 letters); the historical claim that Telegram removed the ClothOff bot is contradicted by TechCrunch (12 January 2026), which found the service still available through a Telegram bot.

Reported harm

ClothOff-generated CSAM of a 15-year-old circulated in her school's Snapchat group from an ordinary childhood photo — persistent image-based abuse of a minor that local authorities declined to prosecute, leaving the federal suit as the remedy path.

How Harm Occurred

A purpose-built 'undress' service converted an ordinary childhood photo into sexual imagery of a minor, which then circulated in her school community; the platform's foreign incorporation and Telegram distribution frustrate removal and enforcement.

Outcome

Ongoing

D.N.J. 2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC, filed 16 October 2025. 2026 docket: Rule 4(m) dismissal call (24 Jun) vacated (29 Jun) after the plaintiff showed ongoing foreign-service efforts; order allowing service by email (8 Jul); motion for service by publication or email (9 Jul) set for decision 3 August 2026. No default judgment, dismissal or service resolution visible at the RECAP mirror's end (15 July 2026).

What remains unknown

  • The service-by-publication/email motion's outcome after 3 August 2026 is not visible in the RECAP mirror (ends 15 July 2026); whether default judgment or dismissal followed is unknown.
  • Whether Doe's school is the Westfield High School of the earlier New Jersey incident is unverified: the complaint names only 'a high school in Union County', and the historical record's 'separate victim from Francesca Mani' is not established by any inspected document. The school is deliberately not inferred or named.
  • The current availability of the generated images is unknown.
  • The platforms' and registries' responses to the requested injunctions are not yet reported.
  • The complaint's platform figures (visitors, image rate) are the plaintiff's allegations and are not independently audited.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The complaint alleges the images of Doe were generated by ClothOff from her photo; the platform's purpose-built undress function is documented by the complaint and the Guardian/Bellingcat investigations. The allegations remain allegations against the unserved defendants; the platform's existence, function and operator identity are independently investigated.

6 claims: 4 documented, 1 corroborated, 1 disputed. What the statuses mean

Documented Jane Doe, a minor suing through her parents, filed the complaint on 16 October 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC, Judge Esther Salas, Magistrate Judge James B. Clark) against AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. d/b/a ClothOff (BVI), Alaiksandr Babichau and Dasha Babicheva (of Minsk), and Telegram entities as nominal defendants.

Causal attribution. Established directly by the filing and the docket.

Documented On 20 October 2023 Doe, then 15, learned that ClothOff-generated CSAM of her and 'several other girls in her class' was circulating in a Snapchat group; the source was an ordinary photo of her at age 14 from Instagram, uploaded by a minor classmate; local authorities declined to prosecute.

Causal attribution. Established as the complaint's contents; they remain the plaintiff's allegations. The prosecution decline is TechCrunch's reading of the complaint, attributed.

Documented The complaint describes ClothOff as a purpose-built 'undress' service producing hyper-realistic output 'indistinguishable from real photographs' without a watermark in three clicks, with at least 27 million visitors and about 200,000 images per day, at least ten affiliated services, Telegram bots and an API.

Causal attribution. Established as the complaint's contents. These are the plaintiff's allegations, not independently audited figures; the historical record's '3 million users' and '15+ affiliated services' were corrected to the complaint's figures.

Corroborated Reporting before the suit identified the operators: the Guardian's Black Box investigation named Babichau and Babicheva (Minsk), a fake AI 'CEO', the Texture Oasis payment front and GGSel/GG Technology links, and tied ClothOff to the Almendralejo (Spain) and Westfield NJ school incidents; Bellingcat's independent investigation mapped the same network and its payment laundering six days earlier.

Causal attribution. Two independent investigations six days apart; they overlap on GG Technology/Bondarenko but were conducted separately. The complaint itself relies on the Guardian's reporting (per Yale).

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Guardian passages naming the operators, the fake CEO, Texture Oasis and GGSel/GG Technology; the Almendralejo and Westfield links; '>4m monthly visits'.
  • bellingcat.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Bellingcat's network map and payment-laundering account (G2A/Skinsback/Steam/PayPal/Stripe/Patreon), 23 Feb 2024.
Documented The 2026 docket shows continuing service efforts: a Rule 4(m) call for dismissal on 24 June 2026 (service not effected; the pseudonym motion administratively terminated), vacated by Judge Salas on 29 June after the plaintiff showed ongoing foreign-service efforts; an order allowing service by email on 8 July; and a motion for service by publication or email on 9 July, set for decision on 3 August 2026.

Causal attribution. Established by the docket through the RECAP mirror's end (15 July 2026); nothing later is visible in this review.

Disputed X, Discord, Google and YouTube removed ClothOff following the clinics' summer 2025 letters (Yale); the historical claim that Telegram removed the ClothOff bot in October 2025 is contradicted by TechCrunch, which found the service still available through a Telegram bot on 12 January 2026.

Causal attribution. The platform removals are a party account (Yale); the Telegram-bot status is contradicted by later reporting and recorded as disputed rather than resolved either way.

Sources

7 sources inspected, from 6 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Complaint PDF (45 pages) fetched and read via pdftotext on 2026-09-15. The filing establishes its own contents; its allegations remain allegations. Applies to s1.

Docket reviewed on 2026-09-15 through D.E. 20 (mirror ends 15 July 2026). Applies to s2.

Read on 2026-09-15. Party source (the clinics bringing the suit); used for the clinics' role and the X/Discord/Google/YouTube removal letters. Applies to s3.

Read in full on 2026-09-15 (29 Feb 2024, Black Box). Applies to s4.

Read in full on 2026-09-15 (23 Feb 2024). Applies to s5.

Read in full on 2026-09-15 (12 Jan 2026); own interview with co-lead counsel. Applies to s6.

Read on 2026-09-15 (17 Oct 2025). Relays the WSJ report; adds Telegram's ToS statement and the separate suit against the boy. Applies to s7.

HTTP 401 paywall on 2026-09-15; not read; language not established. Applies to s8.

HTTP 403 on 2026-09-15; not read; language not established. Applies to s9.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: United States.

Event: a high school in Union County, New Jersey (complaint; the school is not named and is not inferred). Affected person: the New Jersey minor. Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The defendants' BVI/Belarus connections are recorded without becoming event or court countries.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-15: Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a harmful-artifact case (depicted_or_impersonated) with the federal complaint as the primary record. The plaintiff is a minor protected by court-ordered pseudonymity; no school, classmate or image description beyond the minimum case facts is reproduced. The complaint's contents are recorded as allegations; operator identity rests on two independent investigations.

Interaction Concerns

Minor ExploitationThird Party Harm Facilitation

People described

Jane Doe, a New Jersey minor (pseudonymous by court order, suing through her parents Jill and Jack Doe); the complaint references 'several other girls in her class' depicted, unnamed and unquantified

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

Additional affected people are described without a reliable count.

One counted depicted person: Jane Doe (complaint). The complaint's 'several other girls in her class' are depicted but unnamed and unquantified, so the total is counted-plus-unquantified (partial). Platform visitor and image-rate figures (27 million visitors, ~200,000 images/day) are not people and are never counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#lawsuit#federal#new-jersey#clothoff#deepfake#csam#ncii#yale-law#ongoing

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Doe v. ClothOff (D.N.J.): a New Jersey minor sues the AI 'undressing' platform over generated CSAM. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-doe-v-clothoff-nj

BibTeX

@misc{2025_doe_v_clothoff_nj,
  title = {Doe v. ClothOff (D.N.J.): a New Jersey minor sues the AI 'undressing' platform over generated CSAM},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-doe-v-clothoff-nj}
}

Related cases

High Grok and Stability AI tools (reported)

Tennessee minors v. xAI: three girls say a man used an AI app to make nude images and video of them and other minors; they sued xAI and later Stability AI

Three Tennessee girls, two still minors, sued xAI in the Northern District of California on 16 March 2026 over AI-generated nude images and a video made of them as minors. According to the complaint, on or about 6 December 2025 an anonymous Instagram user sent one of them sexual AI images of herself made from her own photos, including her homecoming and yearbook pictures, and a link to a Discord server created by a person she knew, which held images and videos of at least 18 other minor girls, including the two other plaintiffs, many from her school. Local police arrested the man in late December 2025; the other two plaintiffs learned from investigators in February 2026 that he had made nude images of them, and he is alleged to have traded the files on Telegram and Mega. The plaintiffs describe anxiety, sleeplessness, nightmares, self-isolation and needing academic accommodations. Their first complaint said law enforcement linked the app he used to xAI's Grok technology; the July amended complaint says the app relied on Stability AI's tools and names Stability AI as a defendant. On 15 October 2026 the court denied an evidence-preservation motion and a motion to stay, and on 22 October it appointed interim co-lead counsel for four related class cases. No court has ruled on the allegations.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Portland, Oregon: an anonymous social-media account posted 17 racist and anti-immigrant images targeting David Douglas High School football players and their coach, some digitally altered including with AI, from 22 September 2026; the school reported content to Portland police

David Douglas High School in Portland warned families in a statement reported on 28 September 2026 about social-media posts targeting its students, athletes, coaches and staff, saying some images and videos had been digitally altered, including with AI, and did not accurately represent those depicted; it reported some of the content to the Portland Police Bureau. KATU, which reviewed the account, reports 17 posts using racist, anti-immigrant and religious stereotypes against football players: one image shows a Latino player in a sombrero being detained by people labelled as ICE agents, another shows a player in a head covering with what appears to be a fake explosive vest, and a Black player is depicted beneath a caption referring to George Floyd. The head coach said students were hurt, and that one student texted him over the weekend after seeing one of the posts: 'Coach, this is terrible. What do I do?' The account references Rex Putnam High School, whose team David Douglas played on the Friday before the report; which along with its district says it has no connection to it. Who runs the account and which images were AI-generated are not reported.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Los Banos, California: a substitute teacher says a sexualised AI image of him made from an old selfie circulated among middle-school students on TikTok and Snapchat and was used by a student account impersonating him; one student received in-school suspension and he stopped taking assignments at the middle school

WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a substitute teacher in Los Banos, California, who spoke to WIRED by name (not repeated here). On 12 March 2026 a co-worker at his other job told him an AI photo was circulating on social media; the image reused a mirror selfie he had taken at a job in college but showed him in lingerie, posing suggestively. He traced an account sharing it on TikTok to a student at the middle school where he regularly substituted and reported it to the assistant principal; that evening he found a second account, created by a different student, impersonating him under a misspelled version of his name with the image as its profile picture. Over the following weeks he dealt with administrators, parents and the police; one student who admitted creating the image received an in-school suspension. He says the image was also shared on Snapchat, kept spreading among students and drew crude sexual comments on his TikTok account. He told administrators he would not take assignments at the middle school until the matter was addressed; at the local high school the same image was AirDropped to him during a class. WIRED says the district did not respond to its request for comment. He said he does not feel safe returning to the district. The Los Banos Enterprise (25 August 2026) summarised the WIRED account; no independent local reporting was found.

High Grok

St. Clair v. xAI: writer says Grok made sexualised images of her, including from a photo at 14; a Texas court refuses to dismiss xAI's forum suit against her

Ashley St. Clair, a writer and political commentator with about 1 million followers on X, sued xAI in New York on 15 January 2026. She alleges that from on or about 4 January 2026 Grok, prompted by other X users, altered photos of her into sexualized images and published them on X, including one made from a photo of her at 14. She says @Grok told her that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent, but many more images followed. She also says X's reporting channel found no violation and that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization. She says she has suffered serious pain, mental distress and humiliation. The same day, xAI sued her in federal court in Texas, arguing that its terms of service required her to sue there. On 23 June 2026 the New York federal court ordered her case transferred to Texas. On 8 July the Second Circuit stayed that order administratively while it considers her mandamus petition, which was still pending on 24 August. On 20 October 2026 the Texas court denied her motion to dismiss xAI's suit, which is set for trial on 1 March 2027. No court has ruled on her allegations about the images.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents