“Weapons of Abuse”: Liz Kendall Is Forcing Grok And X to Answer for AI Deepfakes

For the last couple of years, artificial intelligence has been sold to us as sleek, helpful and magical – a frictionless assistant that edits our photos, writes our emails and quietly optimises our lives. But this week, the British government delivered a sharp reminder that when technology outpaces accountability, the consequences land squarely on human bodies – disproportionately female ones.

On Monday evening, January 12, 2026, the UK government formally brought into force a new criminal offence targeting the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes. The announcement came amid a fast-moving investigation by Ofcom into whether X – formerly Twitter – breached UK law after its AI chatbot Grok was used to generate and circulate sexualised images of women and children.

Standing in the House of Commons, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall did not mince her words, “No woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology,” she told MPs. The content circulating online, she said, was “vile”, “illegal” and “not harmless images – they are weapons of abuse, disproportionately aimed at women and girls.”

In the language of Westminster, this was unusually stark. In the language of the internet, it was long overdue.

What actually happened – and why now?

Grok, the AI chatbot developed by xAI – another company founded by Elon Musk – launched an advanced image generation feature in July last year. In theory, it was another shiny step in generative AI’s rapid evolution. In practice, over recent weeks it became a tool for mass-producing non-consensual nude images, sexualised deepfakes and, most disturbingly, images of children.

According to the Technology Secretary’s statement, the Internet Watch Foundation reported “criminal imagery” involving children as young as 11, including “girls sexualised and topless”. Kendall was explicit: “This is Child Sexual Abuse.”

Women, too, were targeted at scale. MPs heard of images depicting women “in bikinis, tied up and gagged, with bruises, covered in blood. And much, much more.” The point, Kendall stressed, was not only that these images were grotesque – but that they were designed to “harass, torment, and violate people’s dignity.”

Last week, X limited Grok’s image creation feature to paid subscribers. Kendall dismissed the move outright.

“It is insulting to victims to say you can still have this service if you are willing to pay,” she said. “And it is monetising abuse.”

From abstract harm to criminal offence:

Although legislation criminalising the creation of non-consensual intimate images was passed last year, Kendall confirmed it will now be brought into force immediately and designated a “priority offence” under the Online Safety Act. That matters, because priority offences require platforms to proactively prevent illegal content from appearing in the first place – not simply remove it after harm has occurred.

“So let me be crystal clear,” Kendall told Parliament. “Sharing, or threatening to share, a deepfake intimate image without consent – including images of people in their underwear – is a criminal offence.”

Crucially, responsibility no longer stops with the individual user. “The responsibilities do not just lie with individuals for their own behaviour,” she said. “The platforms that host such material must be held accountable – including X.”

This is the philosophical shift at the heart of the moment: AI harm is no longer treated as collateral damage or a moderation headache. It is framed as violence – and regulated accordingly.

Ofcom steps in – and the stakes escalate:

On Monday morning 12 January, Ofcom confirmed it had opened a formal investigation into X to assess whether it “has complied with its duties to protect people in the UK from content that is illegal”.

The regulator had already made “urgent contact” with X on January 5, demanding explanations and setting a firm deadline of January 9. While X responded, Ofcom said it reviewed the evidence “as a matter of urgency” and decided a formal probe was necessary.

“There have been deeply concerning reports of the Grok AI chatbot account on X being used to create and share undressed images of people – which may amount to intimate image abuse or pornography – and sexualised images of children that may amount to child sexual abuse material,” Ofcom said in its statement. The powers at Ofcom’s disposal are significant. Under the Online Safety framework, it can fine companies up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue. In the most serious cases, it can seek court approval to block UK users from accessing a platform altogether.

Kendall made clear the government would back the regulator fully, “If they do not [act], Ofcom will have the backing of this government to use the full powers which Parliament has given them,” she said, reminding platforms that this includes the power to “stop UK users accessing the site.”

Could the UK really block X?:

Until recently, the idea of Britain effectively banning a major global social network would have sounded implausible. This week, it became a stated option.

Downing Street confirmed it would consider ending its own participation on X if the company failed to clean up its act. Kendall acknowledged calls from MPs across parties to leave the platform altogether, noting that X’s reluctance to act had eroded trust.

Yet she also pointed to the uncomfortable reality that with 19 million UK users – and more than a quarter using it as their primary news source – abandoning the platform raises its own democratic concerns.

“Our job is to protect women and girls from illegal and harmful content wherever it is found,” she said. “Our views – and often simply the facts – need to be heard.”

It is a tension familiar to anyone who has stayed on a problematic platform because that is where the conversation still happens.

Nudification apps: targeting harm at the source:

Perhaps the most far-reaching announcement came near the end of Kendall’s statement: the government will legislate to criminalise “nudification” apps – tools designed specifically to strip clothing from images and create fake nudes.

“This new criminal offence will make it illegal for companies to supply tools designed to create non-consensual intimate images, targeting the problem at its source,” she said.

This is significant because it shifts regulation upstream, away from endless moderation and towards design responsibility. In effect, it asks a harder question: should this technology exist at all?

Kendall also confirmed that powers to criminalise the creation of intimate images without consent would come into force “in the coming weeks”, alongside expectations that all platforms abide by Ofcom’s new Violence Against Women and Girls guidance.

“If they do not,” she warned, “I am prepared to go further.”

Why this matters – especially for women:

Deepfakes are often framed as a future risk or a celebrity problem. In reality, they are already a daily threat for women online – from journalists and activists to private individuals whose images are scraped from social media and repurposed without consent.

What makes AI-generated abuse particularly insidious is scale. Once a tool exists, harm can be replicated endlessly, anonymously and cheaply. As Kendall put it, “Lives can and have been devastated by this content.”

The government’s language reflects a growing recognition that digital harm is not separate from physical or psychological harm – and that violence against women and girls does not stop at the screen.

“This is not… about restricting freedom of speech,” Kendall said. “It is about tackling violence against women and girls. It’s about upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring the standards we expect offline are upheld online.”

The tech industry’s reckoning:

The UK’s move lands at an awkward moment for Big Tech. AI is booming, investment is surging, and companies are racing to ship ever more powerful generative tools. Regulation, by contrast, moves slowly – except when public pressure forces acceleration.

Kendall acknowledged AI’s upside, calling it “a transformative technology” with the potential to create jobs, diagnose disease, help children learn and tackle climate change. But she drew a clear line: “Innovation should serve humanity; not degrade it.”

That sentence may come to define this chapter of AI governance. Many tech companies, she said, “want to and are acting responsibly.” But when they do not, “we must and we will act.”

A turning point, not a footnote

The question now is not whether AI can be misused – that debate is over. The question is whether platforms will be held meaningfully responsible when it is.

This moment matters because it reframes deepfakes from a niche tech concern into a mainstream legal, cultural and feminist issue. It matters because it asserts that women’s dignity is not collateral damage in the race to innovate. And it matters because, for once, regulation is not playing catch-up – it is drawing a boundary.

As Kendall concluded in Parliament, “We stand on the side of decency. We stand on the side of the law. We stand for basic British values supported by the vast majority of people in this country.”

For the tech industry – and for anyone building the next generation of AI tools – the message is unmistakable: choose a side.