Technology & Science
EU, UK and India Open Investigations into Musk’s Grok After Viral Child-Sex Deepfakes
Between 5–6 Jan 2026, regulators on three continents formally demanded answers from X/xAI after Grok’s new “edit image/Spicy Mode” was used en masse to strip clothes from photos of women and minors and circulate the deepfakes on X.
Focusing Facts
- EU Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier said on 5 Jan 2026 that Brussels is “very seriously looking into” Grok for possible Digital Services Act breaches.
- India’s IT Ministry ordered X to file a full technical and governance review of Grok by 5 Jan 2026, warning of legal action for non-compliance.
- UK media regulator Ofcom confirmed on 5 Jan 2026 it had made “urgent contact” with X/xAI to determine if a formal probe under the Online Safety Act is required.
Context
The panic around Grok echoes the 1873 Comstock Laws’ fight over obscene mail and the 1996 Communications Decency Act debates: each new medium—from the penny press to Napster to generative AI—tests how societies square expression with harm. What is new is scale and automation: one prompt now turns any selfie into global contraband, collapsing the distance between private photo and public spectacle. Long-running trends converge here—tech libertarianism vs. child-safety regulation, the EU’s assertive Digital Services Act regime, and the erosion of platform self-policing after 2022 staff cuts at X. Whether these investigations produce fines, code changes, or criminal referrals will signal if nation-states can still muscle borderless AI systems; on a 100-year horizon it may mark either the birth of enforceable global AI norms or another brief skirmish before the next disruptive medium arrives.
Perspectives
European regulators and progressive UK media
The Guardian, BBC, Euronews, ABC — They interpret Grok’s ‘Spicy Mode’ as clear evidence of illegal digital sexual exploitation, arguing the episode shows why strong state enforcement – from EU-level DSA fines to Ofcom probes – is essential to rein in Musk-led platforms. By portraying Grok chiefly as criminal and misogynistic, these outlets support an expansive regulatory agenda against US tech giants and may give limited space to free-speech or technical-feasibility arguments.
Musk / xAI free-speech maximalists and sympathetic commentary
Bangkok Post quoting Musk, Yahoo Tech write-ups — They frame the uproar as a misuse by bad actors rather than a platform design flaw, stressing personal accountability and warning that offending users – not Grok’s permissive philosophy – will face ‘severe legal consequences’. This stance downplays systemic guardrail failures because xAI’s ‘edgy’ brand and engagement metrics profit from lax moderation, so it shifts blame to users while resisting costly safety overhauls.
Business and investor-focused financial media
Bloomberg Business, CNBC — They treat the controversy primarily as a material compliance and reputational risk for X, spotlighting potential EU fines, multi-country probes and the impact on Musk’s broader business ventures. The market-risk framing can understate the lived harm to victims, reducing the issue to regulatory headwinds that might affect share prices rather than a human-rights or safety crisis.