Has anyone ever been arrested for a failed prompt at production of Csam ie no images where made and they came out blank

1. What the reporting actually documents: arrests for produced or altered AI CSAM, not blank outputs

Federal reporting and coverage focus on defendants who generated, possessed, or distributed AI-produced sexual images of minors—most clearly in the DOJ’s case charging Steven Anderegg with production, distribution and possession of AI-generated CSAM and related counts after investigators found explicit prompts and images on his devices ^{[1] [3]}, and in other law‑enforcement summaries noting convictions where AI was used to alter real images into CSAM ^[4]; none of the cited accounts describe an arrest that occurred because a text prompt simply failed to produce any image data or returned an empty/blank result ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The legal doorway for cases that don’t produce a final image: attempted-production and preparatory conduct

Federal law and prosecution practice can reach attempts and preparatory conduct—courts and prosecutors have pursued attempted production of CSAM where suspects took concrete steps toward creating abuse material, producing lengthy sentences in some cases even when the production was not completed ^[5]; the IC3 and DOJ guidance also make clear that realistic computer‑generated images are illegal and that law enforcement treats creation and manipulation technologies as within CSAM statutes ^[4], so a prosecution might arise from significant, demonstrable steps toward producing illicit images rather than the mere fact of a blank output, but the sources show prosecutions usually rest on evidence of generated material, distribution, possession, or substantial steps beyond a single failed prompt ^{[5] [4]}.

3. What’s missing from the reporting: no documented case of arrest solely for a failed blank prompt

In the reporting assembled here—news coverage of the DOJ’s push to treat AI-made sexual depictions of minors as CSAM, official advisories, and legal analyses—there is no documented example of someone being arrested purely because they entered prompts that produced nothing or blank files; the available articles instead center on cases where images were actually created, circulated, or where AI was used to alter real photos into CSAM ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. This is an important limitation: absence of evidence in these sources does not prove no such arrest has ever occurred, only that these mainstream reports and advisories do not record such a scenario ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

4. The enforcement angle and policy push that could matter for borderline cases

Federal officials are publicly pressing a legal principle that AI-generated depictions of minors are treated as CSAM regardless of whether a real child was used to create them ^{[1] [3]}, and advocacy and law‑reform groups are pushing statutes and bills to close gaps around AI‑modified or AI‑created CSAM ^[6], which suggests prosecutors may be incentivized to pursue marginal or novel theories—including attempts—where there is significant evidence of intent and preparatory acts; nevertheless, the present reportage shows enforcement actions are driven by demonstrable artifacts or aggravating conduct (images, distribution, grooming, or alteration), not by a lone, unsuccessful prompt that produced no image ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

5. Bottom line and practical uncertainty

Based on the assembled reporting, arrests tied to AI and CSAM occur when images exist, are distributed, or when substantial steps to produce CSAM can be documented; there is no documented case in these sources of an arrest made solely because a prompt failed and produced blank outputs, though the law can reach attempts where prosecutors can show concrete steps and intent—an evidentiary distinction that could matter in edge cases and which the present reporting does not resolve definitively ^{[1] [5] [4]}.