Skip to main content
NOPE
High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

UK MP Jess Asato sues xAI, alleging Grok generated sexualised images and a sexual-assault video of her at X users’ requests

Jess Asato, the Labour MP for Lowestoft, alleges in a High Court claim against xAI that after she posted on X on 6 January 2026 that Elon Musk must stop Grok being used to strip women without their consent, X users from about 11 January prompted Grok to make sexualised and degrading images of her, which Grok generated and published on X and its website, including bikini images and a video depicting her about to be sexually assaulted. Her particulars of claim (24 July 2026) plead misuse of private information and data protection breaches and seek damages and a compliance order. She says X rejected her reports and that she suffered significant distress. In a WIRED interview on 27 October 2026 she said xAI’s defence had not yet been received. These are the claimant’s allegations; no court has ruled on them.

AI system
Grok
xAI
Occurred
Jan 2026
Reported
3 June 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or AbusePsychological Distress
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Public life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
8 claims: 1 documented, 7 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Grok (xAI chatbot, including its image and video generation on X and the Grok website), as pleaded

What Happened

The particulars of claim say Asato, a Member of Parliament since 2024, posted on X on 6 January 2026 about Grok being used to strip women without consent. From about 11 January, according to the claim, X users tagged the Grok account or used the standalone Grok service to request sexualised, degrading and humiliating images of her, and Grok generated them and published them through its X account and website, where they could be downloaded and reposted. The claim describes images of her in bikinis and a video, made from footage of an interview she gave on 12 January, depicting her surrounded by men and about to be sexually assaulted; it alleges Grok added features to that video that the prompt had not asked for. In her WIRED interview she said she knew the material came from Grok because the users’ commands to Grok were visible on X.

The claim says her parliamentary security team reported posts to X, that X refused on 2 March 2026 to remove the posts her solicitors reported, saying they did not breach its rules, although at least nine had been removed, that xAI confirmed on 25 March that two videos on the standalone Grok service were no longer available, and that six of 21 reported posts remained public when the claim was pleaded. She told WIRED the material was removed after her lawyer wrote to X. She describes significant distress and feeling degraded, violated and harassed. The claim, under the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the tort of misuse of private information, seeks damages and a compliance order. On 27 October 2026 she said xAI’s defence had not yet been received.

Reported harm

A UK MP alleges Grok generated and published sexualised images and a video depicting her about to be sexually assaulted, at X users’ requests, and says this caused her significant distress.

Outcome

Pending

Her solicitors say the claim was filed in the High Court in England on 3 June 2026 (claim no. KB-2026-002373, King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List). Particulars of claim dated 24 July 2026 seek declaratory relief, damages and a compliance order. On 27 October 2026 the claimant told WIRED that xAI’s defence had not yet been received and that no hearing date was known. She also said police identified the user who made the video but could not charge that person, who lives in the United States. No ruling is reported.

What remains unknown

  • xAI’s response: according to the claimant on 27 October 2026, no defence had yet been received; the court file beyond the published particulars was not inspected.
  • The total number of images of the claimant that Grok generated is not known; the claim says it awaits disclosure.
  • How completely the material was removed: the claim says six of 21 reported posts remained public in July 2026, while the claimant told WIRED that the posts were removed after her lawyer wrote to X.
  • No police statement about the identified maker of the video was inspected.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The particulars of claim allege that Grok itself created the manipulated images and the video of the claimant in response to X users’ prompts and published them through the Grok account on X and the Grok website, and that Grok added unrequested features to the video. The claimant told WIRED she knew the material came from Grok because it was integrated with X and the users’ commands to Grok were visible. The claim says xAI later confirmed that two videos on the standalone Grok service were no longer available. These remain the claimant’s allegations; xAI has not filed a defence according to the claimant, and no court has made a finding.

8 claims: 1 documented, 7 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The claimant, a UK Member of Parliament, says that after she posted on X on 6 January 2026 saying Elon Musk had the power to stop his product being used to strip women without their consent, X users from about 11 January prompted Grok to create sexualised, degrading and humiliating manipulated images of her, which Grok made and published on X and the Grok website.

Causal attribution. The claimant’s pleaded case and her own interview account; xAI has not filed a defence according to the claimant, and no court has found what Grok generated.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On 6 January 2026, the Claimant posted on her profile on the X Platform about reports'; 'Following this, from on or around 11 January:'; 'In response to those Prompts, Grok created and generated a substantial number of sexualised, intimate, grossly offensive, degrading, threatening, humiliating and/or discriminatory Manipulated Images of the Claimant'; 'were automatically published on the X Platform via the Grok Account'
  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I posted on social media saying that Elon Musk should stop Grok from being able to do this.'; 'And then, of course, I became a victim of the same trend. So Grok put this woman in a bikini.'; 'the only reason why I knew it was Grok was because it was integrated with X, and you could see the commands that had been given by the users'
  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'She was subjected in early January 2026 to manipulation of her image by Grok'
Reported According to the claim and her interview, the material included photorealistic images of her in bikinis and other images meant to degrade her, and a video made from footage of a 12 January 2026 interview that depicted her surrounded by men and about to be sexually assaulted; the claim alleges Grok added features to the video that the prompt had not requested.

Causal attribution. Allegations in the particulars of claim and the claimant’s interview; the unrequested-features allegation is the claimant’s pleaded case, not a finding.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'publicly depicted her in bikinis'; 'footage of an interview which the Claimant had given on 12 January 2026'; 'generate a manipulated photorealistic video which depicted the Claimant being sexually assaulted by a group of men'; 'contained elements and features which had not been requested'; 'were introduced independently by Grok'
  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'They weren’t nude images, but they were me with inflated boobs in a bikini.'; 'But the really disturbing one was a video of me being surrounded by a group of men'; 'So no nudity, but clearly the next frame is meant to be a sexual assault.'
  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'including images of her in a bikini and a video showing her as the victim of a sexual assault'
Documented Particulars of claim dated 24 July 2026 in Jessica Asato MP v X.AI LLC (High Court, King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List, claim no. KB-2026-002373) plead misuse of private information and contraventions of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, and seek declaratory relief, damages and a compliance order.

Causal attribution. The filed pleading establishes that the claim was brought and what it seeks; its allegations remain allegations.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Claim No. KB-2026-002373'; 'MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST'; 'The Claimant seeks declaratory relief, damages/compensation and other remedies against the Defendant for the tort of misuse of private information and for contraventions of the UK General Data Protection Regulation'; '24 July 2026'
  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The claim seeks a ‘compliance order’ against xAI to bring their systems into compliance with the law.'
Reported Her solicitors say the claim was filed in the High Court in England on 3 June 2026.

Causal attribution. Procedural statement by the claimant’s solicitors.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On 3 June 2026, Ms Asato filed a claim in the High Court in England for breaches of data protection law and misuse of her private information'
  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice, London'
Reported The claimant says her reports to X were rejected as not breaching its terms; the claim says X refused on 2 March 2026 to remove the posts her solicitors reported, saying they did not breach its rules, although at least nine had by then been removed, that xAI confirmed on 25 March that two videos on the standalone Grok service, including the assault video, were no longer available, and that six of 21 reported posts were still public when the claim was pleaded.

Causal attribution. The claimant’s pleaded chronology and interview account; the accounts differ on how complete the removals were.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'refusing to remove any of the reported posts on the basis that'; 'at least nine of the reported posts on the X Platform had been removed'; 'were “no longer available on the platform”'; 'six of the twenty-one posts reported on 18 February 2026 are still publicly available on the X Platform'
  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Because each of these things we reported to X, and none of them contravened their terms and conditions.'; 'who sent a letter to X to ask for these to be removed, and they were'
  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'We have already obtained the removal of the offending images'
Reported The claimant says the images and the video caused her significant distress and left her feeling degraded, violated and harassed.

Causal attribution. The claimant’s own account of her distress.

  • awo.agency(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the Claimant suffered significant distress, anxiety, alarm and intrusion'; 'The Claimant was acutely distressed by the Sexual Assault Video'; 'portrayed her in situations that have made her feel degraded and violated'
  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'including distress and a sense that I was being harassed by this particular creation of this particular video'
Reported In an interview published on 27 October 2026 the claimant said xAI’s defence had not yet been received, that she had no date for it, and that any court hearing date was unknown.

Causal attribution. The claimant’s statement of the case status.

  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'we should be receiving the response and the defense from SpaceXAI in the near future'; 'But we don’t have a deadline or a particular time that I can put on it.'; 'then it will go to a court hearing. But once again, no idea when that might be.'
Reported The claimant told WIRED that police identified the person who made the assault video but could not bring a charge because that person lives in the United States.

Causal attribution. The claimant’s account; no police statement was inspected.

  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'lives in the US, so the police aren’t gonna follow it up because they’re out of the country'; 'They just weren’t able to bring the charge.'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English; no translation needed. Applies to s1, s2, s3, s4.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: United Kingdom.

The claimant is a Member of Parliament for Lowestoft in Suffolk (particulars of claim). The claim is in the High Court in London, King’s Bench Division. Where the images were generated and by whom is not established, and the user who made the video is said to live in the United States, so no event country is recorded.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-28: Full review of a restored row: re-read the solicitors’ June announcement and added the published particulars of claim and the claimant’s 27 October 2026 WIRED interview. A named public figure’s own claim against the AI developer, with the AI system’s output described in her pleading and interview; allegations remain attributed.

People described

A UK Member of Parliament, named as the claimant in her own High Court claim.

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the claimant, is described as harmed in this case; other women depicted by Grok in the same period are not counted here.

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

Tags

#privacy#public_life#deepfakes#non-consensual-imagery#grok#lawsuit#united-kingdom

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). UK MP Jess Asato sues xAI, alleging Grok generated sexualised images and a sexual-assault video of her at X users’ requests. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-asato-v-xai-grok

BibTeX

@misc{2026_asato_v_xai_grok,
  title = {UK MP Jess Asato sues xAI, alleging Grok generated sexualised images and a sexual-assault video of her at X users’ requests},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-asato-v-xai-grok}
}

Related cases

High Grok

Arkansas cases allege Grok sexual-image abuse of children photographed by a professional

Arkansas criminal and civil cases allege that a photographer used children’s portrait photographs to generate sexual images with Grok. The accused pleaded not guilty and the criminal case continues. Two families’ federal suits were voluntarily dismissed. A federal complaint filed on 13 October 2026 in the Western District of Arkansas alleges that local police told a child’s parents that Grok was generating sexual images and videos of her from real photographs. On 21 October 2026 a mother sued the photographer and two xAI companies in an Arkansas county circuit court; KNWA reports that the complaint says federal agents told her some of the photographs he had taken of her young daughter had been modified into AI-generated sexual abuse material.

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.

Medium Grok

UK: Grok made sexualised images of a Welsh presenter and a broadcaster at users' requests; police closed both cases, then reopened the presenter's, TBIJ reports

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and The Observer reported on 29 September 2026 that police investigations into sexualised images generated by X's chatbot Grok had failed to identify anyone. A Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse, who had criticised Grok publicly on New Year's Eve 2025, saw an anonymous X user ask '@grok' to put her in a bikini made of cling film; Grok generated the image from her profile photo and posted it. She reported it to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026, was not asked for a statement until March, and was told officers had not heard back from X; the case was closed in May with the force saying no suspect could be identified. The same account also targeted a commentator and broadcaster, who estimates about 300 Grok images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including one alongside Jeffrey Epstein reported to the Metropolitan Police, which likewise said no suspect could be identified. The presenter entered pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (part of SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act. On 22 October 2026 TBIJ reported that South Wales Police had reopened her case after she filed a formal complaint in September and TBIJ gave officers new information about the requesting user, including a crypto wallet and dozens of deleted posts; the force said it was now investigating the offence under the sexual-offences legislation aimed at deepfakes, rather than malicious-communications law, including enquiries with X. TBIJ added that other users had edited images of her with the standalone Grok app and that she is starting civil legal action against the company. BBC Wales had reported in January 2026 that explicit images of the presenter were created with the chatbot and shared without her consent.

Medium Grok

Rio de Janeiro state: musician says Grok turned her New Year's Eve photo into bikini and nude images at X users' requests; she filed a police report

A musician in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil, says she posted a photo of herself in bed with her cat on X just before midnight on New Year's Eve 2025, and the next morning found that anonymous users had asked X's built-in chatbot Grok to edit it. According to her accounts to G1, Correio Braziliense, Extra and Reuters, Grok produced versions showing her in a micro-bikini, in lingerie and fully nude, and more requests followed when she protested. She described feeling violated and afraid that colleagues or relatives would see the images, and filed a police report in Rio de Janeiro on 2 January 2026 for unauthorised recording of sexual intimacy. She says X removed one requesting account but told her it found no rule violation in her case. BBC News Brasil returned to the case in October 2026.

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