Did Mulk and xAI comply to the EEUU order to keep all xAi data and don't purge from servers anything related do Grok?

1. The EU retention order exists and was extended to end-2026

Multiple outlets report that the European Commission extended a retention order instructing X to keep internal documents and all data related to Grok until at least December 31, 2026, as part of a Digital Services Act assessment into Grok’s generation of sexualised and potentially unlawful images ^{[1] [2] [3]}. That order is framed as a preservation demand — “keep your internal documents, don’t get rid of them” — while regulators probe algorithmic dissemination and illegal content risks ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Reporting does not show a public, documented confirmation of compliance by X or xAI

The assembled articles describe the order and subsequent regulator inquiries but do not quote a formal compliance notice from X or xAI confirming they have preserved all records as instructed; Reuters and TechPolicy.Press report the directive and the extension, but no source here states “X has certified compliance” or provides documentary proof of preservation ^{[1] [4]}. Without such a confirmation in the supplied reporting, any claim that Musk or xAI complied with the EU order would be beyond the documented record provided.

3. No sourced U.S. (“EEUU”) retention order appears in the materials

The question asks specifically about an “EEUU order” to preserve xAI data; none of the supplied sources mention a U.S. government or regulator issuing such an order. The documented orders and probes referenced in these sources are European (European Commission, Ofcom in the UK) and actions by other national authorities, but not a U.S. federal retention demand ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

4. xAI/X took product-level steps amid regulatory pressure, but that is not the same as a preservation certification

Faced with international backlash, xAI limited image-generation and editing features (moving some functions to paying users) and announced restrictions — a product mitigation that regulators welcomed but which does not substitute for a records-preservation compliance statement ^{[6] [5] [7]}. xAI’s public communications in the reporting include automated or defensive responses and policy changes, yet the supplied legal documents (xAI terms and data-processing addendum) primarily describe data handling rules and responsibilities rather than attestations that a regulator’s evidence-preservation mandate was satisfied ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

5. Evidence gaps, plausible next steps and alternative readings

Given the sources, the defensible conclusion is that European authorities ordered preservation and xAI publicly restricted features — but there is no sourced declaration here that X/xAI formally confirmed full compliance with the EU retention order, and no evidence of any U.S. preservation order in the provided reporting ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Alternative viewpoints exist: regulators and privacy advocates treat the retention order as a necessary investigatory tool ^{[3] [11]}, while xAI’s limited public replies and policy language could be read as defensive or incomplete; those contrasting agendas — regulator enforcement versus company damage-control and business continuity — are explicit in the reporting ^{[5] [7]}.

6. Bottom line

The supplied reporting proves an EU retention order was issued and extended through 2026 and documents product restrictions by xAI, but it does not provide a sourced statement that Musk, X, or xAI have formally certified compliance with that EU order; nor does it contain any evidence that a U.S. (EEUU) order to preserve Grok-related data was issued or complied with. Any definitive claim about compliance with a U.S. order or a completed EU-preservation certification is not supported by the materials provided ^{[1] [2] [4] [6] [5]}.