AI nudify apps spark legal scrutiny of Apple and…

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has initiated legal action against Apple and Google, issuing cease-and-desist letters regarding the distribution of apps capable of creating non-consensual nude imagery. The legal challenge seeks to hold the tech giants accountable not as mere content distributors, but as financial participants profiting from in-app purchases linked to deepfake technology.

What happened

On July 17, 2026, David Chiu targeted 13 specific face-swapping and nudification apps—eight hosted on Apple’s App Store and five on Google Play—giving the companies a 28-day deadline to remove the software and sever ties with the involved developers. While Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act typically protects platforms from liability for user-generated content, Chiu is leveraging a 2025 California statute that expands liability for entities facilitating the creation or distribution of sexually explicit deepfakes.

The legal strategy centers on the revenue-sharing model; because Apple and Google collect a percentage of in-app transactions, the City Attorney argues they are knowingly facilitating the sale of non-consensual intimate imagery. Research from the Tech Transparency Project supports these claims, estimating that such apps have collectively garnered 483 million downloads and over $122 million in lifetime revenue. Furthermore, the researchers found that nearly one in three of these apps were rated as suitable for minors, and roughly 40% of search results allowed users to generate sexually explicit content.

In response to the letters, Apple stated it had removed three of the flagged apps and begun terminating associated developer accounts, while Google noted it had already deleted hundreds of apps for policy violations. The case represents an escalation of the City Attorney’s ongoing efforts, which previously included successful shutdowns of 16 prominent deepfake nude websites throughout 2024 and 2025. If the court validates the revenue-share theory, it could establish a legal precedent for other jurisdictions to challenge app store immunity under consumer protection laws.