X, Grok and the limits of safe harbour in India

India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has warned X (formerly known as Twitter) that it risks losing its ‘safe harbour’ status. The trigger was not a single post or rogue account, but came over the circulation of AI-generated obscene content created using xAI’s chatbot Grok.

According to The Economic Times, the government has told the company that failure to remove flagged images and videos and submit an auditable compliance report could lead to the withdrawal of legal protections under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

At stake is the intermediary immunity that shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, provided they follow Indian rules and act swiftly on takedown orders. Officials have made it clear that this protection is conditional—and that generative AI tools hosted and promoted by platforms are now testing the boundaries of that framework.

The notice follows a growing volume of complaints around Grok’s image-generation features, particularly its so-called ‘Spicy Mode’. Many netizens took to social media to point out that the feature has been misused to create non-consensual, sexualised deepfakes of public figures and private individuals, many of them women and celebrities like singer Taylor Swift. And also share their disgust on this intrusion into their privacy on a public platform.  

This feature is getting out of control! Everyone needs to stop asking @grok to put Taylor Swift in a bikini �� pic.twitter.com/jpIwg3P954

— Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) January 1, 2026

On January 2, MeitY sent X a formal notice saying it had “grave concern” over the use of Grok to generate obscene images. The government warned that “such conduct reflects a serious failure of platform-level safeguards and enforcement mechanisms, and amounts to gross misuse of artificial intelligence technologies in violation of applicable laws”.

It added that the spread of such content could violate the dignity, privacy and safety of women and children, “normalising sexual harassment and exploitation in digital spaces, and undermining the statutory due diligence framework applicable to intermediaries operating in India”.

Crucially, officials and legal experts say the issue is not limited to user misuse. Because Grok is a platform-provided AI tool, X could be seen as enabling or amplifying the creation of harmful content rather than merely hosting it—weakening claims to intermediary immunity.

A government source told The Economic Times: “Back in 2021, the Centre had informed the Delhi High Court that X (then Twitter) had briefly become legally responsible as a publisher. In any case, the government is not keen on removing safe harbour provisions. But given the explosion of AI-made content that harms our citizens, especially women and children, it is prepared to take a hard step.”

A member of xAI’s technical staff, Parsa Tajik, tweeted that its engineering teams are working to introduce tighter guardrails. Critics argue that incremental fixes may not be enough unless platforms rethink how generative AI tools are deployed and moderated at a systemic level.

Hey! Thanks for flagging. The team is looking into further tightening our gaurdrails

— Parsa T (@ParsaTajik) January 1, 2026

Safe harbour, with conditions attached

Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, social media platforms are treated as neutral intermediaries and are not held responsible for content created by third parties—so long as they follow government rules and promptly remove unlawful material when directed.

That protection, however, depends on demonstrable due diligence. Platforms must act quickly on government or court orders, appoint local compliance officers, and maintain safeguards to prevent the spread of illegal content.

MeitY has said X is not adhering to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which deal with obscene, indecent, vulgar, pornographic, paedophilic or otherwise unlawful content. Non-compliance within 72 hours, the ministry has warned, could result in revocation of X’s safe harbour status.

The ministry has also questioned whether X’s India-based compliance officers have the authority and oversight mandated under Indian law. This revives a familiar fault line from earlier disputes with the platform.

In December, MeitY issued an advisory asking social media firms to immediately review their compliance frameworks after observing that platforms were not acting strictly against obscene and unlawful content. The directive followed complaints from public discourse and representations from parliamentary stakeholders.

Rajya Sabha member Priyanka Chaturvedi had written to Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw seeking urgent intervention over the misuse of Grok to create vulgar images of women. Vaishnaw has signalled that the government’s patience with self-regulation is wearing thin. “Shouldn’t platforms operating in a context as complex as India adopt a different set of responsibilities? These pressing questions underline the need for a new framework that ensures accountability and safeguards the social fabric of the nation,” he had stated.

Musk’s response—and unresolved questions

X owner Elon Musk responded publicly, saying users who generate illegal content using Grok would face the same consequences as those who upload illegal material.

“Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” Musk said on X, responding to a post about “inappropriate images”.

Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 3, 2026

Indian regulators seem unconvinced by that analogy. Beyond takedowns, MeitY is pressing for design-level changes to Grok itself, including disabling or sharply restricting ‘Not suitable for work’ modes, preventing the generation of realistic likenesses without consent, and maintaining independently verifiable moderation records.

This is not X’s first brush with Indian regulators. In 2021, the platform briefly lost its safe harbour protection after failing to comply fully with the IT Rules, 2021, including the appointment of key India-based officers. Its legal immunity remained suspended for nearly three months.

Advertisers had already stepped back

The regulatory heat comes against the backdrop of a long-running crisis of confidence between X and the advertising industry. Campaign reported in 2022 that advertisers and media buyers had started pausing advertising on X amid concerns about brand safety and moderation following Musk’s takeover. Based on their unease about content controls and Musk’s “erratic behaviour”, they advised brands to avoid the platform because they could not guarantee a brand-safe environment. GroupM assessed advertising on Twitter as “high risk”, according to a report in the Financial Times.

Several large advertisers hit pause on spending. In the US, Media Matters reported that 50 of the top 100 advertisers, which spent $750 million in 2022, had seemingly stopped advertising on Twitter. Brands that paused spending included VW, General Motors, Diageo, Heineken, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Mars and Ford.

This prompted Musk to personally call chief executives to berate them, according to media reports. Agency leaders told Campaign back then, on condition of anonymity, that concerns centred on reduced investment in moderation, staff exits and Musk’s own conduct on the platform.

“Some of the things he is posting, including memes, are horrendous,” one agency leader said. “The challenge for Musk and Twitter is that he will need to prove that this is an environment that is safe for advertisers, and so far, we have not seen that.”

Further unease followed sweeping cuts to Twitter’s sales and moderation teams. Aura Intelligence reported that over 6,000 employees were let go during Musk's takeover of Twitter, reducing the workforce by nearly 80%. 

A platform under pressure from both sides

In a 2024 article for WARC, Gonca Bubani of Kantar described Musk’s stewardship of X as a case study in how quickly platforms can unravel when advertisers and moderation systems are alienated.

“We now know that marketers are fleeing: a net 26% plan to reduce ad spend on X in 2025, the largest drop that Kantar’s annual Media Reactions report has tracked across any major platform since its start in 2020,” Bubani wrote. “Only 12% of marketers now trust ads on X… Only one in 25 believe X provides adequate brand safety,” she added, noting that Google’s perceived brand safety rating stood at 39%.

While Bubani acknowledged that confidence in X had been declining before Musk’s acquisition, she argued that dismantling moderation systems and increasing volatility had pushed the platform “to the edge”.

For Indian regulators, the Grok controversy sharpens a broader policy question: whether generative AI features change a platform’s legal responsibilities. If MeitY withdraws X’s safe harbour protection, the company could face direct liability for user posts in India, along with stricter disclosure and moderation obligations.

That would set a precedent for how governments treat AI-native features embedded within social platforms. Regulators in Malaysia and parts of Europe are already probing Grok’s outputs and urging tighter safeguards.

For social media platforms and AI product teams, the trade-off is becoming unavoidable. Either redesign features that drive engagement but carry foreseeable risk, or accept tighter regulation and increased legal exposure. India’s message to X suggests that promises and post-hoc takedowns may no longer be enough. The scrutiny is shifting upstream—towards product design, model behaviour and whether platforms can prove, with evidence, that harm is being prevented rather than merely cleaned up after the fact.