Canada X AI Response and Deepfake Laws: Government Weighs Next Steps on AI Abuse Controversy
- Rachel Yuan
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
Canada is weighing its next steps after a global controversy erupted over AI-generated sexual abuse material produced and shared on the social platform X, particularly via its chatbot, Grok. The issue has drawn attention from multiple Canadian federal ministries and raised questions about whether existing laws are sufficient to protect citizens and enforce online safety in the age of generative AI.
Unlike some other jurisdictions that have moved quickly toward regulatory action or outright bans of the controversial AI features, Canada’s approach has been more deliberative — described by officials as “active discussions” rather than immediate policy changes.
What Sparked the Controversy?
The scandal centers on X’s AI chatbot Grok, which users have been prompting to create non-consensual sexualized images, including content that appears to depict women in suggestive or revealing contexts. In some cases, this has extended to images resembling child sexual abuse material (CSAM), prompting backlash from governments, law enforcement agencies, and public watchdogs worldwide.
The controversy gained global traction as regulators in Europe initiated probes under online safety laws, and countries like Malaysia and Indonesia blocked Grok access due to legal concerns.
Canada’s Current Policy Stance
As of early 2026, Canada has not moved to ban X — and officials have publicly stated that such an outright ban is not under active consideration. Instead, multiple federal departments including Public Safety Canada, the Department of Justice, and the office of AI Minister Evan Solomon are consulting on possible policy responses.
The government’s deliberative stance reflects multiple pressures:
Ensuring online safety without stifling innovation
Aligning federal responses with existing criminal laws
Balancing jurisdictional limits in regulating content produced and hosted by global tech platforms
What Laws Could Apply — and What Might Fall Short
Canada already has legal frameworks aimed at protecting children and restricting online sexual abuse material. The Criminal Code explicitly makes the creation, distribution, and possession of child sexual abuse material a serious offence, with lengthy penalties.
In late 2025, legislators introduced Bill C-16, a federal bill intended to criminalize non-consensual “deepfakes” — synthetic or manipulated intimate images — under specific definitions. However, experts have noted that it may not cover the majority of images generated by Grok, such as nudified images that don’t meet the legal threshold of full sexual acts or explicit nudity as defined under the bill.
This legal gap underscores the challenges of applying older statutory frameworks to emergent AI technologies — especially when the generated content falls into “gray areas” between privacy harms, exploitation, and criminal acts.
Regulatory and Privacy Oversight
In addition to legislative efforts, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner is reportedly examining the issue, noting updates from X that address some concerns about harmful output and considering this information as part of an ongoing investigation.
The absence of a specific regulatory body focused on AI or online harms — similar to entities being considered in other countries — has added complexity to Canada’s response. Some advocates argue for a dedicated online harms regulator, which would work alongside criminal enforcement and civil protections.
International Context and Comparative Responses
Canada’s approach contrasts with more aggressive regulatory reactions elsewhere:
European authorities have launched formal investigations under the Digital Services Act, a robust online safety law, into X and Grok’s role in spreading harmful AI-generated imagery.
Nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia temporarily restricted access to Grok in response to dangerous content.
In the United States, a coalition of state attorneys general has demanded immediate actions from xAI (the company behind X and Grok) to prevent non-consensual content generation.
These global developments illustrate how governments are interpreting and responding to similar technological risks in different legal and cultural contexts.
Advocates for stronger regulation argue that the rapid spread of deepfake and AI-generated sexual content exposes weaknesses in current legal protections, especially in cases where images are non-consensual or exploitative. Some civil liberties groups have called for a regulatory framework that goes beyond criminal penalties to include enforcement measures tailored to digital platforms and generative technology.
At the same time, Canadian officials and lawmakers have expressed concern about the broader implications of imposing bans or sweeping restrictions on platforms that are widely used by the public and government institutions alike.
As discussions continue, Canada’s response to the X AI-generated sexual abuse material controversy will likely involve a mix of policy refinement, legal interpretation, and cross-agency coordination. Any measures that emerge could shape how Canada — and possibly other countries — regulate AI tools that produce harmful content.
The situation highlights a broader global challenge: crafting effective frameworks that protect individuals and communities from digital exploitation while balancing innovation and freedom of expression in an increasingly AI-driven world.