Your fact-checks will appear here
The prosecution of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in the United States, including federal and state laws, enforcement, and challenges.
If a person used Grok to generate AI child sexual abuse material (CSAM), then deleted it and never distributed it, prosecution is possible but not guaranteed: U.S. federal law already covers the creat...
Federal prosecutors typically rely on the core federal child‑pornography statutes—most notably and § 2252A—and related provisions such as 18 U.S.C. § 2251 and the definitional statute 18 U.S.C. § 2256...
Federal criminal statutes already reach some forms of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and prosecutors, regulators, and advocacy groups are pushing statutory fixes and enforcement tool...
There is clear evidence that AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is being prosecuted and that platforms and companies to authorities, but the sources provided do not document a specific, v...
There are no well-documented U.S. cases in the available reporting showing a defendant prosecuted solely for possession of where prosecutors offered no evidence of production, distribution, or that im...
Federal child sexual abuse material (CSAM) statutes have been applied to AI-generated imagery and used to bring prosecutions, but precedent is uneven: courts and scholars identify real gaps in doctrin...