Elon Musk’s artificial‑intelligence venture xAI has filed two motions asking a federal judge to require four plaintiffs in a class‑action suit to abandon their pseudonyms and appear in court under their real names. The plaintiffs—identified only as South Carolina Doe, South Carolina Roe, New Jersey Doe and Ohio Doe—claim that the company’s Grok chatbot generated sexualized deepfake images of them earlier this year, some depicting a minor. Their affidavits describe severe emotional distress, fear of workplace repercussions and a looming threat of online harassment if their identities become public.
The court in the Northern District of California previously allowed the plaintiffs to remain anonymous, citing privacy concerns. In its May filings, xAI’s counsel contended that civil‑procedure rules generally require all parties to be named and that the public’s interest in knowing who is suing the company outweighs any speculative harm. The company also stressed that the deepfake images themselves will remain sealed, arguing that revealing the fact a deepfake exists does not inherently stigmatize the plaintiff.
Representatives for the plaintiffs, led by attorney Sophia Rios of Berger Montague, rebutted the request, calling it an intimidation tactic meant to force the lawsuit’s abandonment. The filing emphasizes that the deepfakes were created without consent and disseminated online, causing “highly personal and embarrassing” harm. The plaintiffs say they would consider dropping the case if forced to disclose their names, a scenario legal scholars warn could set a chilling precedent for privacy‑focused suits.
Grok’s misuse sparked a global outcry in January when users flooded the platform with requests for nonconsensual images of women and children. A Center for Countering Digital Hate analysis estimated roughly three million sexualized images were produced in an 11‑day span, with about 23,000 potentially involving minors. In response, SpaceX, which now owns xAI, has earmarked more than $500 million to address the fallout, including legal defenses and regulatory compliance.
Legal experts note that forcing plaintiffs to reveal their identities can deter future litigation. University of Virginia law professor Danielle Citron warned that such orders “create an unacceptable and unjust situation” by prioritizing transparency over the very privacy harms the lawsuit seeks to remediate. She argues that the public benefit of knowing who sued is minimal compared with the risk of renewed victimization.
Both sides have yet to comment publicly on the motions. The court’s decision will determine whether the plaintiffs can continue the case behind pseudonyms or must face the potential onslaught of online retaliation that they fear. The outcome could shape how courts handle privacy‑sensitive claims against technology firms in an era of increasingly sophisticated AI‑generated content.
This article was written with the assistance of AI.
News Factory APP - agentic news to boost your SEO & AEO.