xAI Moves to Unmask Plaintiffs in Grok Deepfake Class Action
Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI has petitioned a federal court to strip anonymity from the four plaintiffs behind a proposed class action tied to the Grok deepfake lawsuit, Benzinga reported Thursday. The case, filed in the Northern District of California, centers on claims that xAI’s Grok model generated sexualized deepfake images of real individuals without consent.
What xAI Is Arguing
The company’s legal team contends that civil litigation ordinarily requires named parties. They argue the public holds a legitimate interest in knowing who is bringing claims against a major AI firm. xAI further maintains the plaintiffs have not demonstrated credible risks of concrete additional harm. Attorneys for the company also pointed to the court’s decision to handle disputed images under seal as sufficient protection already in place.
The four plaintiffs are currently identified only by state and generic surname, listed as South Carolina Doe, South Carolina Roe, New Jersey Doe, and Ohio Doe. They have offered to disclose their real names privately to xAI while keeping pseudonyms on the public docket.
Plaintiffs Warn They May Drop the Case
The claimants submitted sworn affidavits describing significant emotional distress. Several stated they would withdraw from the litigation entirely if compelled to proceed under their legal names in public filings. None of the contested images were attached to publicly accessible court documents, according to filings cited by Benzinga.
One plaintiff, identified as South Carolina Roe, alleges that explicit deepfakes were generated depicting her as a minor. Her filing stated that public identification would cause severe personal harm.
Background on the Case
The suit is among a growing wave of legal challenges targeting AI companies over non-consensual synthetic imagery. Plaintiffs’ attorney Sophia Rios of Berger Montague filed a response urging the court to preserve the pseudonyms. Rios accused xAI of weaponizing the identity dispute to pressure vulnerable accusers into abandoning the case before it reaches the merits. Her filing argued the motion compounds the same injuries the plaintiffs are seeking to remedy through litigation.
What Comes Next
The Northern California federal court has not yet ruled on xAI’s request. A decision on plaintiff anonymity could shape how similar AI-harm cases proceed across the country. Legal observers note that courts have historically allowed pseudonyms in cases involving sexual content, though outcomes vary by jurisdiction and specific facts alleged.
Benzinga noted it reached out to both xAI and plaintiffs’ counsel and received no response ahead of publication.
Read Next: AI Regulation Is Coming Fast. Here Is What Companies Need to Know
