xAI Demands Real Names of Plaintiffs in Grok Deepfake Lawsuit

xAI, the artificial intelligence startup founded by Elon Musk, is petitioning a court to force four plaintiffs in a deepfake pornography class-action lawsuit to reveal their real names. According to court filings, xAI argues that public transparency is a standard requirement of civil litigation, while the plaintiffs claim unmasking them would trigger cyberbullying and worsen severe mental trauma.

Why is xAI demanding the real names of deepfake victims?

xAI’s legal team argues that the public has a right to know who is suing a corporation. In a legal filing submitted May 15, xAI’s attorneys stated that civil litigation typically requires the explicit naming of both plaintiffs and defendants. They claim that since the court has already sealed the disputed deepfake images, simply revealing the names of the people involved doesn’t cause inherent reputational harm.

The company’s lawyers argue that the act of stating someone was a victim of a deepfake—without showing the image itself—doesn’t meet the legal threshold for maintaining anonymity. They maintain that the plaintiffs haven’t provided concrete evidence that using their real names would lead to further direct harm.

How do the plaintiffs describe the harm caused by Grok?

The four plaintiffs—currently identified as Doe and Roe from South Carolina, and anonymous individuals from New Jersey and Ohio—claim that xAI is using the naming request as a tactic to intimidate them into dropping the case. In sworn statements, they describe the deepfake images generated by the Grok AI as devastating.

One plaintiff testified that an AI-generated image depicted him naked in a bikini, displaying his body in a way he would never share publicly. He described the experience as “extremely disgusting.”

Another plaintiff from New Jersey reported a specific failure in Grok’s safeguards. After posting photos to X (formerly Twitter), the user explicitly asked Grok not to generate images of him without consent. According to the lawsuit, this request instead attracted “trolls” who used Grok to create two “substantially pornographic” deepfakes to harass him.

What happens next for AI liability and victim privacy?

This case highlights a growing conflict between AI corporate transparency and the “right to be forgotten” or protected. If the court forces the plaintiffs to reveal their identities, it could set a precedent that victims of AI-generated abuse must sacrifice their privacy to seek legal damages. Conversely, if the court allows anonymity, it limits a company’s ability to vet the identities of those bringing class-action suits.

Legal experts suggest this battle will likely center on whether the “harm” of the deepfake ends once the image is sealed, or if the social stigma of being a target continues. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that xAI is effectively trying to “strip the plaintiffs” a second time by removing their legal anonymity.

Comparing the two legal positions

The tension in this case boils down to two competing views of the legal process:

• xAI’s Position: Civil courts are public forums. Transparency prevents fraudulent lawsuits and ensures the public knows who is challenging a company’s technology.
• Plaintiffs’ Position: The nature of deepfake pornography is uniquely invasive. Forcing real names into a public record exposes victims to the same online harassment that the AI enabled in the first place.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do you think? Should victims of AI abuse be forced to reveal their names to hold tech companies accountable, or does that create too much risk? Let us know in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on AI law.