Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm, xAI, is requesting the public identification of four people who allegedly had deepfake sexualized images created of them using Grok—including one apparently targeted with sexualized deepfake images of them as a child, according to recently filed court documents.

On May 29, the four main claimants in a federal class-action lawsuit—currently identified as South Carolina Doe, South Carolina Roe, New Jersey Doe, and Ohio Doe—described in affidavits the emotional distress they had suffered after the alleged deepfakes were created earlier this year. The four fear further online harassment and doxing if they are forced to use their real names in the lawsuit against xAI, the documents allege.

“Having stripped them of their clothes, xAI now seeks to strip Plaintiffs of their pseudonyms in an obvious effort to intimidate Plaintiffs into dropping the litigation by compounding the same harms that they seek to remedy,” Sophia Rios, a lawyer representing the individuals for legal firm Berger Montague, wrote in a recent filing. “Asking this Court to reverse itself, xAI suggests that the abuse it has perpetuated is no big deal.” Rios tells WIRED she is unable to comment beyond what is written in the filings.

In January, use of the Musk-owned Grok chatbot caused global outrage as scores of men used the generative AI system to create fake images of women “undressed” and in bikinis. The images, which were posted on X, also included sexualized images of apparent children. Analysis from the Center for Countering Digital Hate has claimed Grok was used to create around 3 million sexualized images over just 11 days, with 23,000 of those potentially including children. Facing a wave of lawsuits and regulation around the world, SpaceX, which now owns xAI, has set aside more than $500 million to deal with the fallout.

The class-action lawsuit against xAI was initially filed in January with one pseudonymous lead claimant. A judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California approved an order allowing them to be a Jane Doe in the case. The case was later refiled with the four main pseudonymous plaintiffs at the start of May, with the Jane Doe becoming South Carolina Doe.

Statements in court records say those suing xAI would make their names and personal information known to the company but wanted to use pseudonyms in public to protect their privacy, to not be publicly linked to the images, and to reduce any potential for being further harassed online. Deepfake images of the plaintiffs were not included in any of the public legal filings.

In the middle of May, xAI filed two motions with the federal district court in northern California asking for the judge to overturn their ruling allowing the use of pseudonyms in the case. The documents state that under civil court laws, which can have some exceptions, cases must name all of the parties involved. Law360 first reported on xAI’s motions asking the previous decision be overturned.

In twomotions, xAI’s lawyers claim that real names should be used by those launching the lawsuit as there is a public interest in the identities of those suing the company. They claimed that no evidence has been put forward for any specific further harm or threats to individuals in the case. And they also say that because deepfake images will not be made public as part of the lawsuit, this should assuage any privacy concerns.

“Factoring out the deepfake image itself—as it will remain under seal—there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about revealing the fact that a deepfake image was created of South Carolina Doe without revealing the image itself,” the lawyers wrote in one of their May 15 filings. “As a result, this case simply does not involve the types of compelling privacy interests traditionally recognized as requiring pseudonymity.”

Neither xAI nor lawyers representing the company responded to WIRED’s request for comment about the case.

Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has specialized in tackling digital abuse, says civil cases where people are ordered to sue using their real names can lead to lawsuits being dropped, creating an “unacceptable and unjust” situation. “Forcing plaintiffs in privacy suits to sue in their names does so little for judicial transparency and so much to deter litigation,” Citron tells WIRED.

All of the four pseudonyms claimants in the case, according to their legal filings on May 29, would consider dropping out of the proceedings if their names had to be revealed. In these most recent filings, lawyers for the claimants say xAI’s request should be denied, adding that the case is about “highly personal and embarrassing deepfakes depicting Plaintiffs that were disseminated without their consent.”

The South Carolina Doe described how they found the alleged deepfake of them “stripped down to a revealing bikini” online and says how it shows her body “in a way that I would not ever share publicly.” They claim they were worried about what employers or colleagues would think if they saw the image, and they feared being further targeted online. “I was also overcome with disgust at the thought of what the individual who had asked Grok to create the deepfake was doing with the photo,” they wrote.

“If I were forced to reveal my name publicly as part of this case, I would fear that those who support Elon Musk, his companies, and Grok, whom I have observed to be very vocal online, would find my name in the public record, disseminate it, dox me, and retaliate against me by creating additional and more extreme deepfakes of me,” the filing says.

Similar statements from the other alleged deepfake victims describe them experiencing “severe emotional distress,” embarrassment, and shock at seeing the images created without their consent. Broadly, other victims of deepfake sexual abuse and nonconsensual imagery have described feeling similar ways.

One male, named as New Jersey Doe in the lawsuit, says they saw people on X using Grok to create sexualized images and posted a request that “Grok not create images of me without my consent.” The next day, the court records say, he discovered two deepfake images of himself, including one depicting him “spreading his butt cheeks.” He says he believed the message to Grok asking it not to create deepfakes of him “brought my account to the attention of online trolls that were using Grok to harass and cause distress.”

South Carolina Roe alleges that Grok was used to create explicit images of her as a child. The court filings say that in February, police officers searched South Carolina Roe’s home, which they shared with their mother and father. “I learned from law enforcement officials that my father was facing criminal charges related to the possession and distribution of CSAM,” the documents state.

“I have learned that Grok altered several images depicting me in a bed with my father. Grok altered the images to make it appear as if we had just consummated a sexual act,” the documents say, adding the individual has not seen the images themselves. South Carolina Roe’s legal statement described themselves as being “distraught” that they have no control over the deepfakes and says they fear the images may be shared online by predators. “Publicly identifying me would cause me untold harm,” the court filing says.