Cases on file
Consumer-protection action over Grok deepfake content. Pleads UDAP / consumer-protection theories targeting xAI's representations to consumers about safeguards. (Baltimore is a city, not a state AG; included here because it parallels the state-AG enforcement posture.) Background coverage →
A long-running multi-state pattern of AG-led investigations and settlements against Clearview AI over face-recognition database practices. Tracked individually on our privacy & biometrics page.
Multi-state letters & coalitions
- September 2025 — 35-AG joint letter to AI companies. A coalition of 35 state attorneys general sent a letter to leading AI companies — including xAI — flagging concerns about child safety, deepfake content, and consumer protection. The letter is non-binding but is widely read as a precursor to coordinated multistate enforcement.
- NCII / TAKE IT DOWN coalition coordination. State AGs have signaled they will coordinate enforcement under their state non-consensual-intimate-imagery laws alongside federal enforcement under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. See our TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance page.
Investigations
- California AG (Bonta) — Grok deepfake inquiry. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reported to have an open investigation into Grok-generated deepfake imagery distributed in California. (See Grok deepfake cases.)
- Texas AG (Paxton) — Character.AI. The Texas Office of the Attorney General has opened an inquiry into Character Technologies / Character.AI focused on minor-user safeguards and consumer-protection representations.
When AI companies sue back — xAI v. Bonta
The state-AG vs. AI-company posture is not always one-directional. xAI Corp has sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in federal court to enjoin enforcement of California AB 2013, the Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act. The complaint argues the statute compels speech (First Amendment) and regulates extraterritorial AI development (dormant Commerce Clause). See California AB 2013 and xAI v. Bonta for details.