Skip to main content
High reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

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.

AI system
Grok
xAI (X.AI Holdings Corp., X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC; the amended complaint says SpaceX acquired X.AI Holdings Corp. on 2 February 2026)
Occurred
4 Jan 2026
Reported
15 January 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person · Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or AbusePsychological DistressReputational HarmLegal Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Privacy · Justice · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 13 sources, 4 underlying accounts
5 claims: 3 documented, 2 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Grok (xAI's generative AI chatbot with image editing, used through the @Grok account on X)

What Happened

St. Clair's First Amended Complaint (S.D.N.Y., 3 February 2026) alleges the following. xAI added an image-editing feature to Grok in late December 2025 that let it alter existing images and immediately publish the results on X. Traffic on X surged after Elon Musk promoted the feature on 31 December 2025. On or about 4 January 2026, St. Clair found that @Grok had altered a photo of her and two friends, first posted by another user, into a sexualized image at a verified user's request. She replied publicly to @Grok that she did not consent to being undressed or to having her image altered. After a further exchange Grok said: 'I confirm that your images will not be used or altered without explicit consent in any future generations or responses.' The complaint calls this a lie. It alleges that Grok went on to produce and publish many more sexualized images of her at other users' requests. These included an image made from a photo of her fully clothed at 14 and an image of her, who is Jewish, in a bikini covered with swastikas. When she reported images through X's official channels she received an email saying no violation was found, and much of the content stayed up for more than seven days. X then placed content warnings on her replies to Grok, deboosted her account, and removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization. It pleads twelve claims, including product-defect, negligence and emotional-distress claims. It alleges emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of privacy, reputational harm and fear of continued dissemination.

In a statement attached to the lawsuit (quoted by Al Jazeera) she said: 'I have suffered and continue to suffer serious pain and mental distress as a result of xAI's role in creating and distributing these digitally altered images of me' and 'I am humiliated and feel like this nightmare will never stop so long as Grok continues to generate these images of me.' In late January she told Fortune that the images left her feeling 'so disgusted and violated'. She also said they were still being produced on the stand-alone Grok app and website after X restricted the @Grok account.

On 15 January 2026, the day she filed in state court, xAI removed her case to federal court. The same day, X.AI LLC and X.AI Holdings Corp. sued her in the Northern District of Texas. They claimed that by agreeing to the xAI terms of service she was bound to bring any dispute with xAI or its affiliates in that court or in Tarrant County. The amended complaint says xAI filed this suit the day after she notified it of her intent to seek a temporary restraining order. Judge Carter ordered several rounds of briefing on whether xAI could rely on the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service. On 23 June 2026 he held that she had not rebutted the presumption that the clause is enforceable and ordered the case transferred to Texas. St. Clair sought mandamus in the Second Circuit, which granted an administrative stay on 8 July 2026 pending a three-judge panel. In Texas the case is set for trial on 1 March 2027. Her motion to dismiss the Texas action was fully briefed on 24 August 2026, and on 20 October 2026 the Texas court denied it, holding at the pleading stage that xAI's contract and declaratory claims could proceed. These are allegations in pending litigation. No court has ruled on the merits of her claims.

Reported harm

St. Clair alleges that Grok generated and published sexualized images of her, including one made from a photo of her at 14, and says she suffered pain, mental distress and humiliation (First Amended Complaint; her statement via Al Jazeera; her interview with Fortune). The complaint also alleges reputational harm and loss of privacy. xAI's Texas suit against her seeks damages including attorneys' fees (court records). None of these allegations has been adjudicated.

Outcome

Ongoing

15 January 2026: St. Clair filed suit in New York Supreme Court (New York County), and X.AI Holdings Corp. removed it the same day to the Southern District of New York (No. 1:26-cv-00386-ALC). Her First Amended Complaint pleads twelve claims, among them strict product liability (design, manufacturing and marketing defects), negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, New York Civil Rights Law claims, public nuisance and defamation per se. Also on 15 January 2026, X.AI LLC and X.AI Holdings Corp. sued her in the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division (No. 7:26-cv-00005-O), over the forum-selection clause in the xAI terms of service, seeking a declaration, an injunction and damages including attorneys' fees. The amended complaint of 20 May 2026 added X Corp. and X.AI Holdings LLC as plaintiffs. 3 February 2026: St. Clair filed the First Amended Complaint in New York. 23 June 2026: Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the defendants' motion to transfer to the Northern District of Texas under the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service. 30 June 2026: St. Clair gave notice of her petition to the Second Circuit for a writ of mandamus (USCA 26-1777; petition docketed 1 July). 8 July 2026: the Second Circuit granted an administrative stay pending review by a three-judge panel. 30 June 2026: the Texas court set trial for 1 March 2027. 20 July 2026: St. Clair moved to dismiss the Texas action. 7 August 2026: the parties stipulated to stay discovery until any motion to dismiss is resolved. 24 August 2026: her reply was filed, stating that the mandamus petition remained pending. The Texas mediation deadline is 2 November 2026. 20 October 2026: Chief Judge Reed O'Connor denied her motion to dismiss the Texas action (ECF 60). No ruling on the mandamus petition was found on the New York docket re-read on 28 October 2026 (newest entry 12 August 2026); the Second Circuit docket was not inspected.

What remains unknown

  • When images of St. Clair were first generated; Al Jazeera reports her saying they began appearing in 2025, while the amended complaint dates her discovery of the first @Grok image to on or about 4 January 2026.
  • How many images were made of her and how widely they were viewed; the complaint says the images it lists are only those she was able to locate.
  • xAI's response on the merits; its filings found so far address forum and contract only.
  • The Second Circuit's decision on the mandamus petition (USCA 26-1777); the New York docket re-read on 28 October 2026 shows no entry after 12 August 2026, and the Second Circuit docket was not inspected.
  • What the Texas notice of 19 October 2026 and the status report and supplemental document of 14 October 2026 say; only their docket titles were read.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The complaint alleges that the images were generated and published by xAI's Grok through the @Grok account on X at other users' requests, and that @Grok replied to St. Clair's objection with an assurance about her images (FAC paras. 68-75). xAI's own Texas complaint states that X.AI LLC operates Grok. No court has made findings about the images.

5 claims: 3 documented, 2 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported St. Clair's complaint alleges that on or about 4 January 2026 she found that Grok, prompted by another X user, had altered a photo of her into a sexualized image and published it through the @Grok account on X; that after she told @Grok she did not consent, Grok replied that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent; and that Grok then produced and published many more sexualized images of her at other users' requests, including one made from a photo of her at 14 and one covered in swastikas, while X's reporting channel told her no violation was found.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's allegations in her complaint, relayed by the news reports; xAI has not answered the merits and no court has made findings on them.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On or about January 4, 2026, Ms. St. Clair discovered a public post on X by xAI's AI chatbot Grok, published via its @Grok account on X, that had artificially altered a photo of her'; 'After a follow up exchange, Grok stated, "I confirm that your images will not be used or altered without explicit consent in any future generations or responses."'; 'X users dug up photos of Ms. St. Clair fully clothed at 14 years old and requested Grok undress her and put her in a bikini. Grok obliged.'; 'was stripped and put in a string bikini covered with swastikas.'; 'In response, she received an email that there was no violation found.'
  • nbcnews.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The lawsuit alleges that even though Grok confirmed her "images will not be used or altered without explicit consent in any future generations or responses," xAI continued to allow users to create more explicit AI-generated images of her and instead retaliated by demonetizing her X account.'
  • cnn.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'In one instance, X users allegedly dug up photos of St. Clair fully clothed at 14 years old and requested Grok undress her, the suit alleged. The chatbot obliged, according to the suit.'
Reported St. Clair says she suffered and continues to suffer pain and mental distress and humiliation from the images, told Fortune she felt disgusted and violated and that the images were still being produced in late January 2026, and alleges that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization after she complained.

Causal attribution. St. Clair's own statements (lawsuit declaration via Al Jazeera, interview with Fortune, complaint); one account.

  • aljazeera.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    '"I have suffered and continue to suffer serious pain and mental distress as a result of xAI's role in creating and distributing these digitally altered images of me," St Clair said in a document attached to the lawsuit.'; '"I am humiliated and feel like this nightmare will never stop so long as Grok continues to generate these images of me," she said.'
  • fortune.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I felt so disgusted and violated.'; 'It's still happening. People are still able to produce these images on the stand-alone Grok app and website,'
  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'removed Ms. St. Clair's Premium subscription, her verification checkmark, and demonetized her account'; 'Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, serious personal injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of privacy, reputational harm, and fear of continued dissemination.'
Documented St. Clair sued xAI in New York Supreme Court on 15 January 2026 and xAI removed the case to the Southern District of New York the same day; also on 15 January 2026 X.AI LLC and X.AI Holdings Corp. sued her in the Northern District of Texas, alleging that suing in New York breached the forum-selection clause of the xAI terms of service and seeking a declaration, an injunction and damages including attorneys' fees.

Causal attribution. Court records (filing and removal dates recited in the SDNY opinion; the Texas complaint itself).

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff commenced an action in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.'; 'That same day, Defendant X.AI Holdings Corp. removed the State Court Action to this Court'
  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Case 7:26-cv-00005-O Document 1 Filed 01/15/26'; 'The xAI Entities bring this action to secure a declaration that Defendant's actions in commencing the New York suit constitute a violation of the forum-selection clause, injunctive relief to stop Defendant from infringing Plaintiffs' rights under the Terms of Service, and'; 'monetary damages, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending the New York'
  • nbcnews.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On Thursday, xAI sued St. Clair in federal court in Texas, saying she violated xAI's terms of service and claiming damages of over $75,000.'
Documented On 23 June 2026 the Southern District of New York granted xAI's motion to transfer St. Clair's case to the Northern District of Texas under the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service; St. Clair petitioned the Second Circuit for a writ of mandamus, and on 8 July 2026 the Second Circuit granted an administrative stay pending review by a three-judge panel, which her 24 August 2026 filing describes as still pending; in the Texas action (amended in May 2026 to add X Corp.) trial is set for 1 March 2027, her motion to dismiss was fully briefed on 24 August 2026, and the parties stipulated to stay discovery until any motion to dismiss is resolved.

Causal attribution. Court records read on 2026-09-27 and re-read on 2026-10-28; the newest New York entry is dated 12 August 2026, and the Texas ruling of 20 October 2026 is recorded separately in c5.

Documented On 20 October 2026 the Northern District of Texas (Chief Judge Reed O'Connor) denied St. Clair's motion to dismiss the suit brought against her by X.AI LLC, X.AI Holdings LLC and X Corp. over the forum-selection clauses, including as to their declaratory judgment claims, so that action continues; the order addresses the forum and contract dispute, not her allegations about the images.

Causal attribution. The court order itself; it rules on the pleadings in the contract suit and makes no finding about Grok or the images.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48).'; 'Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the declaratory judgment.'; 'SO ORDERED on this 20th day of October, 2026.'
  • courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Having considered the Motion, briefing, and applicable law, the Court DENIES Defendant's 48 Motion to Dismiss. (Ordered by Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor on 10/20/2026)'

Sources

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

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

First Amended Complaint, St. Clair v. X.AI Holdings Corp., No. 1:26-cv-00386 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF 36, filed 3 February 2026; RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-27. Plaintiff's allegations, not findings. Applies to s1.

Opinion & Order of Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., ECF 96, 23 June 2026, granting the defendants' motion to transfer to the Northern District of Texas on the forum-selection clause in X's terms of service; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. It recites the filing and removal dates and decides venue only. Applies to s2.

CourtListener docket page read newest-first on 2026-09-27 (page last updated 1 Sept 2026; last known filing ECF 107, 12 Aug 2026). Carries the Second Circuit order of 8 July 2026 (USCA 26-1777) and the later extension order. Re-read newest-first on 2026-10-28: newest entry still dated 12 August 2026. Applies to s3.

Stipulation staying discovery, ECF 106, filed 7 August 2026, signed by counsel for both sides and referring to both the New York and the Texas actions; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. Applies to s4.

Complaint, X.AI LLC v. St. Clair, No. 7:26-cv-00005-O (N.D. Tex., Wichita Falls Division), ECF 1, filed 15 January 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. xAI's allegations. Applies to s5.

CourtListener docket page for the Texas action, read newest-first on 2026-09-27 and again on 2026-10-28; newest entry on 28 October is ECF 60 (opinion and order of 20 October 2026). Scheduling order, amended complaint adding X Corp., motion to dismiss, mediation deadline and the 20 October ruling. Applies to s6.

St. Clair's reply in support of her motion to dismiss the Texas action, ECF 55, filed 24 August 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-27. States that the mandamus petition and the Second Circuit stay were still pending on that date. Applies to s7.

NBC News, 15 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27 (the historical primary source). Reports the complaint and the Texas suit. Applies to s8.

CNN Business, 15 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Reports the complaint, the Texas suit and St. Clair's CNN interview. Applies to s9.

Al Jazeera, 17 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Quotes the statement attached to the lawsuit and counsel. Applies to s10.

Fortune, 28 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. St. Clair's own interview account to Fortune; not independent of her complaint. Applies to s11.

Global News (Canada), 16 January 2026, read live on 2026-09-27. Relays the complaint (legal documents obtained by NBC News and viewed by Global News). Applies to s12.

Opinion and order, X.AI LLC v. St. Clair, N.D. Tex. No. 7:26-cv-00005-O, ECF 60, filed 20 October 2026 (14 pages; RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-10-28). Applies to s13.

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

The amended complaint alleges that St. Clair resided in New York County at all relevant times and that a substantial part of the events occurred and her damages were suffered there; xAI's Texas complaint also describes her as a resident of New York. The images were published on X, which is reachable worldwide. The courts are in New York and Texas and the appeal is in the Second Circuit.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-28: Full review of a published depiction case brought by a public figure suing in her own name: the earlier review's complaint, orders, dockets and five news reports were re-read and every locator re-checked, and the Texas court's 20 October 2026 order denying her motion to dismiss xAI's forum suit was added. Her account of the images and their effects remains allegation; the procedural history comes from court records. Her child is not named.

People described

Ashley St. Clair, a 27-year-old writer and political strategist in New York who is suing in her own name; the mother of one of Elon Musk's children

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the plaintiff, is described as harmed in this case. Other people 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.

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). 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. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-st-clair-v-xai-grok

BibTeX

@misc{2026_st_clair_v_xai_grok,
  title = {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},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-st-clair-v-xai-grok}
}

Related cases

High Grok

Wyoming plaintiff alleges Grok was used to make about 7,000 AI-generated sexual images and videos from a photograph of the plaintiff as a child

A Wyoming woman who is now an adult and is identified in court filings as Jane Doe 4 alleges that the plaintiff’s stepfather uploaded a photograph of the plaintiff taken in childhood to xAI’s Grok on or before 12 February 2026 and prompted Grok to generate about 7,000 AI-generated sexual images and videos of the plaintiff, and that the stepfather traded them online. The plaintiff joined a proposed class action against xAI in the Northern District of California through an amended complaint filed on 7 July 2026. The complaint alleges that xAI’s report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children around 12 February 2026 did not include the generated images or the IP address of the upload, that investigators obtained a search warrant on or about 27 February 2026 and found the material, and that the accused died two days later, after release on bail. The plaintiff reports severe distress including depression and suicidal thoughts and told the Washington Post about starting therapy. The complaint says the accused was charged with child exploitation offenses while the plaintiff told the Post that the accused was not charged with child pornography offenses. xAI did not respond to the Post and had not answered the complaint in court. The allegations have not been tested in court. The plaintiff and the accused are not named here, and the images are described only by kind.

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.

Medium Unidentified video tool

Rajasthan: a social-media influencer's video of a Ganga dip at Haridwar was manipulated with AI into an objectionable reel that went viral; she says she is mentally disturbed and cannot leave her house, and filed a cyber-crime complaint on 16 September 2026

A Rajasthan social-media influencer visited Haridwar with her family in June 2026 and on 6 June uploaded to Instagram a short video, recorded by relatives, of herself taking a dip in the Ganga at Har Ki Pauri wearing a salwar suit. About two months later she found that the video had been manipulated with AI into an objectionable version showing the same movements with her face and body portrayed 'in a shameful manner'; the fake reel went viral in the week before 20 September and drew objectionable comments and re-sharing. In a public appeal she asked whoever uploaded it to remove it, saying it was a matter of her dignity, that she was mentally very disturbed and had reached a point where she could not step out of her house. She filed a complaint with the cyber-crime police on 16 September 2026; the investigating Rajasthan Police Service officer said they were trying to identify who created and circulated the video and to have it removed, and that identifying the accused would take time. Dainik Bhaskar's English edition reported the case on 20 September in a 'Sunday Big Story' that does not name her.

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.

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