“Given the false image itself — because it will remain sealed — there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about disclosing the fact that a false image of South Carolina Doe was created without disclosing the image itself,” the lawyers wrote in one of their May 15 filings. “As a result, this case simply does not address the types of compelling privacy interests that have traditionally been recognized as requiring pseudonymity.”
Neither xAI nor lawyers representing the company responded to WIRED’s request for comment on the case.
Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in combating digital fraud, said civil cases in which people are ordered to file lawsuits using their real names could lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit, creating an “unacceptable and unfair” situation. “Forcing privacy plaintiffs to sue on their behalf does so little to increase court transparency and makes it so much harder to litigate,” Citron tells WIRED.
According to documents filed on May 29, all four plaintiffs in the case, who appear under pseudonyms, would consider withdrawing from the proceedings if their names had to be disclosed. In these latest filings, plaintiffs’ lawyers to talk xAI’s motion should be rejected, adding that the case involves “highly personal and embarrassing deepfakes depicting Plaintiffs that were distributed without their consent.”
The South Carolina Doe described finding an alleged bogus online showing them “stripped down to a revealing bikini,” and says it showed off her body “in a way I would never share publicly.” They say they were worried about what employers or co-workers would think when they saw the photo and feared they would be further attacked online. “I was also disgusted by the thought of what the person who asked Grok to create a deepfake did with the photo,” they wrote.
“If I were forced to publicly disclose my name as part of this case, I would fear that supporters of Elon Musk, his companies, and Grok, who I have noticed being very vocal on the Internet, would find my name in public records, spread it, harass me, and retaliate against me by creating additional and more extreme falsehoods about me,” the filing reads.
Similar statements from other alleged deepfake victims describe that they experienced “severe emotional distress,” embarrassment and shock when they saw images created without their consent. Overall, other victims of false sexual abuse and non-consensual images described similar feelings.
One of the men, named in the lawsuit as a Recent Jersey Doe, claims he saw people on X using Grok to create sexual images and posted a request that “Grok not create images of me without my consent.” The next day, court records show, he discovered two bogus photos of himself, including one showing him “spreading his buttocks.” He says he believes the message to Grok asking him not to create false misinformation about him “brought attention to my account of online trolls who were using Grok to harass and cause distress.”