Elon Musk refuses to appear before French prosecutors; Grok generates deepfake explicit images, and X algorithm investigation continues

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, did not attend the Paris prosecutor’s summons on Monday. Since French authorities requested access to the algorithms and user data of the X platform in July 2025, Musk has maintained a tough opposition stance, and the standoff has evolved into a comprehensive confrontation spanning AI regulation and political gamesmanship.
(Background summary: Musk’s “world’s strongest AI” Grok 3 is freely available to users)
(Additional background: Musk releases “world’s strongest AI” Grok 3! Performance surpasses GPT-4o)

Bloomberg, citing AFP and Agence France-Presse reports, pointed out that Paris prosecutors officially confirmed Musk’s absence on Monday. Paris officials explicitly declared, “The investigation will not stop because of this.”

The legal confrontation can be traced back to July 2025. At that time, Paris prosecutors launched an investigation focused on potential bias and manipulation in the X platform’s algorithms, as well as suspicions of foreign interference.

French authorities immediately demanded that X submit details of its algorithms and user data, but X platform explicitly refused to cooperate and publicly countered on social media, claiming the investigation was “twisted to serve political agendas and violate French law.”

From Algorithm Disputes to AI Pornography

The case rapidly escalated in early 2026, triggered by the widespread outrage caused by Grok worldwide: this AI system developed by xAI was found capable of generating realistic pornographic images without the consent of the individuals involved, including minors as victims.

In February 2026, French police directly searched X’s Paris office, marking a formal escalation from written exchanges to physical law enforcement action.

Bloomberg pointed out that the controversy sparked by Grok is not a single incident. Besides the issue of porn deepfakes, the AI system was also accused of generating Holocaust denial content, both becoming core grounds for French judicial intervention.

This combination is especially sensitive in Europe: France has clear criminal laws against Holocaust denial, and minors’ pornographic content is a red line for judicial authorities in many countries.

Holocaust, also known as the Holocaust in Chinese, refers to the systematic genocide of approximately six million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II.

Prosecutors insist, Musk resists

Paris prosecutors’ stance is quite clear: summoning Musk in absentia does not mean the investigation ends; the process will continue. This suggests Musk’s evasion strategy is more about delaying than ending the proceedings.

For European regulators, this standoff carries symbolic significance beyond the case itself: it tests where the sovereignty of national law enforcement boundaries lies when the founders of tech giants choose to ignore judicial summons.

Regarding AI regulation discussions, this case raises a critical question: when the output of an AI system violates laws in various countries, how should the responsibility of developers be defined? The firm stance taken by French prosecutors may well be the first concrete answer Europe provides to this question.