San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu’s department has shut down 10 deepfake nude websites and secured a settlement agreement from Briver LLC to stop operating any platform that generates nonconsensual deepfake pornography. The enforcement action reflects a growing push to hold Apple and Google accountable for apps that violate their own stated policies.
A January 2026 Tech Transparency Project report identified 47 iOS apps and 55 Android apps that complied with requests to generate nudifying images. Those apps were collectively downloaded more than 705 million times and generated $117 million in revenue. At least one app was rated for ages 9 and up in the App Store.
As reported by Wired, Apple’s response has been reactive and piecemeal. In April 2026, the company removed 15 apps flagged by the Tech Transparency Project and contacted developers of six others, giving them 14 days to address violations or face removal. But the same research group’s April report revealed a deeper problem: Apple’s own search and ad systems were steering users toward these apps. Nearly 40% of top results for searches like “nudify,” “undress,” and “deepnude” returned apps capable of rendering women nude or scantily clad.
Apple’s Search Systems Promoted the Apps
When users searched for “deepfake” on the App Store, the first result was an ad for FaceSwap Video by DuoFace, a nudifying tool. Apple claimed it had already blocked many search terms before receiving the report and has since blocked additional ones, adding that it integrates new AI and machine learning technologies to improve moderation.
The most worrying bit of information from this is that external researchers had to surface it; Apple did not catch it independently. The real question is why algorithmic recommendations for sexual abuse material required an outside report to trigger policy changes.
San Francisco’s enforcement action succeeds because it operates outside the platform’s discretion. The Take It Down Act, which became effective law in May 2025, criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery, whether produced by camera or algorithm. That legal authority gives the city attorney use that Apple’s internal guidelines lack. A developer can ignore the App Store policy. They cannot ignore criminal liability.
Google and Apple take a cut of revenue from these apps, creating a direct financial incentive to look the other way. Neither company has publicly discussed how this conflict shapes enforcement decisions.
New apps continue to surface as fast as Apple removes them. The platforms have the technical capacity to block these submissions preemptively, screen search results automatically, and refuse revenue from known violators. That they have not suggests the cost of inaction remains lower than the cost of action. San Francisco is trying to change that equation.
