Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. Last week, public outrage was rightly expressed about the use of artificial intelligence to undress women and children in photographs by X’s AI assistant Grok. The use of AI in that way without consent is wrong. It is disturbing, and in many cases it is illegal. We support Ofcom in taking enforcement action where an AI tool is used to generate illegal content, especially of children. We support the Government’s stance on nudification tools.

X itself has warned of consequences for anyone prompting Grok to make illegal content. The tools in question have been put behind a paywall, for the easy identification via name and bank details of anyone misusing them. Beyond the platform, however, the Internet Watch Foundation has identified cases where perpetrators have used Grok in tandem with other AI tools to generate category A material. As the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has rightly said, such mainstream AI tools must not become an enabling step in the child abuse production pipeline.

Law already exists to deal with much of this, including the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—in which the Government voted against tougher amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge—and the Online Safety Act 2023. Those laws should be enforced. We await Ofcom, the independent regular, setting out its next steps.

Regardless of the law, it is right to expect AI companies to anticipate and prevent misuse of products before their deployment through rigorous red teaming. I accept that for a law to deter, the enforcement threat must be credible, but its use must also be proportionate.

Notwithstanding the soft back-pedalling of the Secretary of State today, the Government’s appendage swinging over the weekend was extremely serious. Ministers mooted as an urgent remedy the banning of a site with 21 million monthly users in this country, despite another Minister guffawing that banning X was “conspiracy theory No. 3,627.”

Since their invention, the internet and social media have been misused—often criminally—by people traffickers, paedophiles and fraudsters: the gutter dwellers of our society. Nobody is on their side, but Government have never before proposed blocking TikTok, Google or Facebook wholesale for the frequent and often flagrant misuse of their sites. That would be an extraordinarily serious move against a platform that can be used for good—for uncovering scandals, sparking democratic revolution, and allowing the free exchange of ideas, day to day, including those that we do not like. It is that very power for good that makes Iran’s mullahs reach to block the internet in the face of courageous protesters.

This episode poses legitimate questions about who holds power in the internet age. Many worry about the accrued influence of big tech titans—me included—but they worry, too, about the power of Government to divert, hide and duck accountability. They worry about this Government.

The uncomfortable truth for all of us is that some of this imagery sits in a legal grey area. What Grok has produced at scale in 2026 is a modern-day iteration of an old problem, from crude drawings to photoshop. Grok is not the only tool capable of generating false or offensive imagery, and not all of this content will cross the threshold into illegality. Plenty of it is sick, degrading and morally repugnant but does not cross the criminal threshold. What, then, is the Secretary of State proposing to do about the difficult enforcement choices that a regulator or police force must make? The risk is that, with finite resource, and in a highly politically sensitive environment, regulators could be diverted from pursuing the most abhorrent and dangerous crimes.

If we wish to mitigate the risk to children, one simple intervention may help stop them sharing their own image too freely: raising the digital age of consent for social media to 16. The cross-party consensus is growing. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, agrees with that idea; does the Secretary of State? She knows that there are geopolitical consequences to her rhetoric. Figures close to President Trump have already threatened sanctions. Has the Secretary of State engaged with the US Government? Has she been advised on the nature of any retaliation, were the UK Government to block X? The US-UK tech deal has already been paused. We need clarity on what else is at stake.

To conclude, the Tech Secretary has said:

“We are as determined to ensure women and girls are safe online as we are to ensure they are safe in the real world”,

so will she ensure that the Government enforce against themselves for their failure to advance the rape gang inquiry, their failure to stop puberty-blocking trials, their failure to implement guidance on single-sex spaces, and their inability to deport illegal migrants who have committed sex offences? This Government rightly worry about the online sphere, and we support them on that, but there is plenty to be getting on with in the real world.

[Liz Kendall]

I was going to say that I was grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for Ofcom’s action and investigations, and her support for our action on banning nudification apps, and that I hope she and her party will actually vote for the Crime and Policing Bill in its final stages, but she then began her own campaign of misinformation in the House. I merely stated the facts about the Online Safety Act. There is a backstop power in the Act, which I remind her that her party voted for in government. Under that power, in the most serious cases, if Ofcom believes that a company is refusing to comply with the law, Ofcom has the power to apply to a court for serious business disruption measures to stop people accessing a platform. If she disagrees with her own Government’s legislation, she should make that clear to the House.

The legislation is extremely clear that it is a criminal offence to share or attempt to share non-consensual intimate images. It is going to be illegal to create or ask to create those images. The ban on nudification apps will be an important change. As I have said, this is nothing to do with freedom of speech; it is about upholding British values and the British law. I also gently point out to the hon. Lady, who mentioned our allies in the United States, that the President signed the Take it Down Act, which deals precisely with non-consensual intimate images. Maybe she should do a little bit more research, rather than just reading headlines, online or in newspapers.

I think the public will be clear about what change they want, and I genuinely hope that this is something we can work on across the House. It is because I am such a champion of freedom of speech that I do not want women to be bullied or harassed off any platform, and want their views and voices heard. The hon. Lady’s colleagues might wish that she would take the same approach; I see that from their faces.