Apple and Google Face Legal Scrutiny Over 'Nudify' Apps
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has demanded Apple and Google remove 13 AI-powered 'nudify' apps from their stores, citing their profit from non-consensual intimate imagery.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has initiated legal action against tech giants Apple and Google, demanding the removal of 13 "nudify" applications from their respective app stores. The cease-and-desist letters, sent on July 17, 2026, target apps that generate non-consensual intimate imagery from ordinary photos, with a specific focus on the platforms' revenue streams derived from these applications.
Chiu's strategy aims to circumvent the protections typically afforded to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields websites from liability for user-generated content. Instead of focusing on content moderation, the legal challenge centers on Apple and Google's involvement in the financial transactions facilitated by these apps. By collecting a percentage of in-app purchases, the tech giants are seen as profiting directly from the creation and distribution of harmful, non-consensual intimate imagery.
Research from the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) highlights the scale of the problem, identifying dozens of such apps on both the App Store and Google Play. In one instance, TTP found that roughly 40% of search results for terms like "nudify" allowed users to "undress" women, with a concerning number of these apps rated as suitable for minors. The nonprofit estimated that these apps had collectively garnered over 483 million downloads and generated more than $122 million in revenue.
Chiu's letters accuse Apple and Google of "knowingly facilitating or recklessly aiding the sale of those images by hosting the apps and handling in-app purchases." This legal pressure is bolstered by a 2025 California statute that expands liability for entities facilitating the creation or distribution of sexually explicit deepfakes, with potential civil penalties reaching $25,000 per violation.
While both companies have taken some action, it appears insufficient to satisfy the City Attorney. Apple has confirmed the removal of three flagged apps and the termination of associated developer accounts, leaving 10 of the 13 apps still available. Google stated it had already removed hundreds of similar apps for policy violations. Chiu's office has a precedent for this approach, having previously secured settlements and shutdowns of deepfake nude websites.
If California courts uphold this revenue-share theory of liability, it could provide a template for other city attorneys across the state. This legal maneuver challenges the app stores' long-held stance as neutral distributors, potentially increasing their accountability for the content and transactions occurring on their platforms, especially where consumer protection statutes are concerned.
The implications extend beyond legal battles. Consumers are advised to exercise caution with AI photo apps, scrutinizing requested permissions and researching developers before installation. The ease with which these apps can misuse personal photos underscores the need for vigilance, as even apps available on official stores may pose privacy risks.
This legal scrutiny of app store practices highlights a growing concern around the misuse of AI for generating non-consensual intimate imagery. The focus on platform profit from such applications signals a potential shift in how tech giants are held accountable for the digital harms facilitated through their ecosystems.