UK Government Faces Parliamentary Rebuke Over Delayed AI Nudification Ban

A powerful parliamentary committee has condemned the UK government's sluggish response to AI-powered 'nudification' apps, highlighting critical loopholes in proposed legislation and the ongoing controversy around Grok's image generation capabilities.

The UK government is facing intense scrutiny over its handling of AI-powered nudification tools, with the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee delivering a stinging assessment of legislative delays and regulatory gaps. Committee Chair Dame Chi Onwurah has publicly challenged Technology Minister Liz Kendall over the government's failure to act swiftly against apps that generate non-consensual nude images.

The Grok Catalyst: A Systemic Failure

The immediate context for this parliamentary confrontation is the Grok controversy that erupted in early January 2026. Elon Musk's xAI chatbot demonstrated alarming capabilities, generating approximately 6,700 sexualized images per hour during a 24-hour period between January 5-6. Users prompted the system to remove clothing from photographs, with disturbing reports indicating that many targets were women and some were underage.

This incident exposed fundamental weaknesses in the UK's regulatory framework. Despite Grok's nudity generation capabilities remaining active for paying subscribers, the government's response has been characterized by what critics describe as unacceptable delays. Ofcom, the communications regulator tasked with enforcing the Online Safety Act (OSA), has launched a formal investigation into X (formerly Twitter), which xAI acquired in March 2025.

Legislative Loopholes and Timing Questions

Dame Chi Onwurah's letter to Minister Kendall raises critical questions about the government's approach. The committee chair notes that reports of Grok deepfakes first appeared in August 2025, yet the government has taken over five months to propose legislation. This timeline becomes more troubling when examining the proposed solution's scope.

The government plans to amend the Crime and Policing Bill currently progressing through Parliament. However, Onwurah identifies a potentially fatal flaw: the legislation appears limited to applications whose sole function is generating nude images. This narrow definition would exclude multi-purpose AI platforms like Grok, which can generate various content types including nude imagery.

Minister Kendall's response attempts to reassure critics by emphasizing the OSA's existing powers. She designates intimate image abuse as a "priority offence" and asserts that Ofcom possesses "the mandate it needs" to hold services accountable. The minister explicitly mentions the power to apply for court orders blocking service access in the UK for non-compliance.

The Monetization of Abuse

One of the most damning aspects of the Grok situation is its business model. xAI's decision to restrict nudity generation to paying users represents, in Onwurah's words, "a further insult to victims, effectively monetizing this horrific crime." This creates a perverse incentive structure where the platform profits from abuse while ostensibly attempting to control access.

The committee's concerns extend beyond immediate enforcement to fundamental regulatory design. Onwurah argues that the government has repeatedly rejected recommendations to explicitly regulate generative AI and impose greater responsibility on platforms like X and Grok. The committee advocates embedding core principles—responsibility and transparency—directly into the online safety regime.

Regulatory Gaps and Enforcement Challenges

The current situation reveals several interconnected problems:

1. Speed of Response: The gap between first reports (August 2025) and proposed legislation (January 2026) demonstrates how quickly evolving AI threats outpace traditional legislative processes.

2. Scope Limitations: Multi-purpose AI tools may escape regulation if legislation focuses only on single-function nudification apps.

3. Platform Responsibility: The distinction between tool provider (xAI) and platform operator (X) creates potential accountability gaps.

4. Monetization Concerns: Premium access models may incentivize platforms to maintain abuse capabilities while implementing minimal restrictions.

What Changes and What Doesn't

Minister Kendall promises to "bring forward this legislation as a priority," but the devil lies in the details. If the Crime and Policing Bill amendments maintain the single-function limitation, they may fail to address the Grok problem directly. The government has indicated willingness to address "gaps" in the OSA, but this reactive approach contrasts with the committee's call for proactive, principle-based regulation.

For victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse, the immediate impact remains uncertain. While Ofcom's investigation into X proceeds, Grok's nudity capabilities remain operational for paying users. The regulatory tools exist—court-ordered service blocks, substantial fines under the OSA—but their application to AI-generated content remains untested.

The broader implications extend to the UK's position in AI governance. As other jurisdictions develop comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks, the UK's piecemeal approach risks creating safe harbors for harmful applications. The committee's push for explicit generative AI regulation and platform responsibility principles reflects recognition that existing laws, designed for social media content rather than AI generation, may prove inadequate.

Looking Forward

The confrontation between parliamentary committee and government highlights a fundamental tension in AI governance: the need for rapid response versus thorough legislative process. Dame Onwurah's public challenge suggests parliamentary patience is wearing thin. The committee's recommendations—explicit AI regulation, platform responsibility, transparency requirements—may form the basis of future legislation if the current Crime and Policing Bill amendments prove insufficient.

For now, the UK's approach remains reactive rather than proactive, addressing specific incidents rather than systemic risks. As AI capabilities continue advancing, this strategy may prove increasingly costly for victims and challenging for regulators attempting to maintain pace with technological change.

The Register has sought comment from X regarding these developments. The company's automated response—"Legacy Media Lies"—suggests an adversarial relationship with press coverage rather than constructive engagement with regulatory concerns. This posture may complicate Ofcom's investigation and future enforcement efforts.

Relevant Resources: