AI nudification site fined £55K for skipping age checks
- Reference: 1763722810
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/11/21/ofcom_osa_fine_undress/
- Source link:
Ofcom [1]said that Itai Tech Ltd – operator of the site Undress.cc, an AI-powered service that takes real photos and spits out fake nudes of whoever's in the frame – failed to implement "highly effective age assurance" as required under the Online Safety Act's rules designed to stop children accessing harmful pornographic content. The decision, published on November 20, also tacked on an additional £5,000 penalty for failing to comply with a statutory information request.
Ofcom noted that Itai Tech made its website unavailable to users with UK IP addresses once the investigation began, but only after the regulator had opened its case.
[2]
Alongside the fine, Ofcom said it has launched formal investigations into five other companies running around 20 pornography sites, and is expanding probe activity around additional operators that have ignored information requests.
[3]
[4]
Under the Online Safety Act, pornography providers must deploy age-assurance mechanisms that are "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair." Ofcom has made it clear that self-declaration or basic payment card checks do not meet the standard, and that acceptable systems include photo ID matching, facial age estimation, mobile network-verified age checks, and open banking-based verification.
As Ofcom's Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, put it, the use of "highly effective age assurance" is "non-negotiable" and excuses will not wash.
[5]Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for pretending UK's Online Safety Act doesn't exist
[6]Discord says 70,000 photo IDs compromised in customer service breach
[7]Imgur yanks Brit access to memes as parent company faces fine
[8]Charities warn Ofcom too soft on Online Safety Act violators
The fine against Undress.cc is only the second fine Ofcom has issued under the Online Safety Act. The first went to online message board 4chan earlier this year after the platform failed to respond to statutory information requests about how it was preventing access to illegal content.
Beyond fines, which can reach up to £18 million or 10 percent of global turnover for large platforms, the regulator can also issue service restriction and access blocking notices, effectively cutting off UK users from non-compliant sites. Ofcom now lists 76 pornography providers under investigation through its age-assurance enforcement program.
[9]
The rules also require that no pornographic content can be visible before or during the age-check process, and platforms must ensure their systems cannot be easily bypassed. In the regulator's view, age assurance must take place before any harmful material is shown to a user, not as an afterthought.
Ofcom's broader message to adult content publishers is simple: the old "I'm over 18, honest" checkbox isn't going to cut it anymore. The watchdog is making it clear that sites that don't put proper age checks in place should be ready for investigations, fines, and – if they still don't get the hint – being blocked entirely. ®
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/ofcom-fines-nudification-site-50000-for-failing-to-introduce-age-checks
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aSCaqY3_c6afArwMBheUFwAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aSCaqY3_c6afArwMBheUFwAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aSCaqY3_c6afArwMBheUFwAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/13/4chan_ofcom_fine/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/discord_photo_ids_leaked/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/01/imgur_exits_uk/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/19/ofcom_osa_enforcement/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aSCaqY3_c6afArwMBheUFwAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
NippleWatch er sorry Ofcom are playing whack-a-mole with the small fry, while studiously ignoring the elephants in the room. Performative Politics at its most cynical. At least the Aussies are aiming at the right targets.
This
Of course all this was predictable from the moment the Act was drafted - but I still struggle to understand why legislators think age verification is a better approach to protecting the vulnerable than making the big platforms bear some legal liability for the content they host, like newspapers and TV channels do (in theory). Of course that would rapidly result in Twitter, Facebook et al disappearing from the UK internets - but that in itself would be an interesting social experiment.
Rather like the social experiment we've been conducting for the last two decades by allowing them to operate unregulated...
VPN usage with children was estimated to be about 8% last time I looked. Maybe 90% if your sample data consists solely of teenage boys in the 14-18 category
"VPN usage with children was estimated to be about 8% last time I looked"
I'm guessing that would have been before age verification came in.
"Maybe 90% if your sample data consists solely of teenage boys in the 14-18 category"
Well, yes. That would be the target demographic. But if a kid of any age is looking for pr0n, they're going to find it, and sooner rather than later. A simple image search with SafeSearch turned off will get you there in seconds (so to speak).
"VPN usage with children was estimated to be about 8% last time I looked"
Where's that survey?
I only ask if it includes the ages 0 - 18 it's going to have very, very different results to 13 -18.
Also how do they actually know? Ask 10 children if they use a VPN and extrapolate from that?
My teenage kids freely admit they use VPNs to bypass school internet restrictions, along with geoblockiing.
Never trust kids to give the truth to surveys. As I've spoken to both my kids, if you believe the school ground talk, every teenage boy has had sex with at least 10 girls, yet every girl is a virgin.
It's also a service that should clearly be worrying about the age of the people in the source photos just as much as the age of the users but, for some reason, that's not a concern for ofcom
And so it begins .....
Minister 1 - Something must be done about this!
Minister 2 - But we are doing something about this!
Minister 1 - Why can't I get to my tractor website then?
Undress.cc
I mean, yeah, sure; fines, offcom, online safety act and all that..
I'm more concerned about the service undress.cc operates; that sounds like it's ripe for misuse, both in a generate blackmail material way, and a "Maybe checking the output is not underage is more important than the input" kind of way.
Re: Undress.cc
Perhaps prohibiting the type of service† it offers might make more sense.
† Using an image of a clothed adult (99% female ?) and grafting a vaguely feasible naked body on to that image.
Hard to see a "legitimate" use. The non·consensual use of an image is nothing if not plain rude.
If consensual she could just as easily get her kit off and snap away.
Personally don't see the point and do wonder how many time Maggie Thatcher etc has been disrobed as a joke or to give the hard right of the Tories their jollies. Suella on the other hand would require a braver man than they can boast.
Re: Undress.cc
It fundamentally is only a service for non consensual use.
Ofcom looks ridiculous for only enforcing this one side issue
Re: Undress.cc
Agreed. The fine should have been for existing and a few ordersof magnitude greater.
Bet the fines will go nowhere
Had a quick search, suspecting that Itai Tech Ltd would be an overseas company and Ofcom could go whistle for the fine.
Actually there is a UK based Itai Tech Ltd! However it is also in a state of 'Active proposal to strike off' according to Companies House, so Ofcom can still go whistle once they're wound up, I imagine.
Re: Bet the fines will go nowhere
If it's in the process of being struck off and theirs a fine against it then it may well be that the striking off can be suspended until the fine is paid.
Big picture
I think people are missing the big picture here.
The ultimate goal of this is to make people arrive at conclusion that Digital ID would have solved this.
Basically corrupt government is manufacturing consent through "nudge" policies.
Re: Big picture
"consent through "nudge" policies."
I somehow misread that as "nudage" policies.
Re: Big picture
Could you walk that one through in greater detail. There seem to be a few steps missing in the logic.
Keep your AI and digital trickery, I'll continue to do it old-school:
https://frinkiac.com/caption/S12E19/458750
Even older school: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_specs
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_specs
I Double Dog-Dare You
... to go to undress.cc and upload an image of Chewbacca the Wookie!
"upload an image of Chewbacca the Wookie"
New strip poker strategy, Artoo: let the Wookiee win.
Re: I Double Dog-Dare You
Chewbacca?
The holiday special season is here, so it should be Chewie's wife Malla. Just no Brazilian job, thank you!
What about Consent?
This is so evil because the heart of the matter should be consent and not age. Age verification serves only to validate that a person is old enough to knowingly *grant* consent – that's why it's called the age of consent! Age verification only protects ONE (albeit extremely vulnerable) class of victim and this outcome does nothing to stem the vile tide of exploitation in general, in a wider sense.
In order for these sites to exist *at all*, ethically, they would need to be mandated (and forced) to prove genuine consent of every class of every category of person involved in the production and consumption of their bile: the users, the subjects in the prompts and every single human being featuring in their training data – none of whom are ever disclosed.
In reality: there simply is no way that this could be done properly and so the only outcome I find conscionable is the complete shut-down and blanket ban of such sites – not a pocket-change fine!
Re: What about Consent?
You speak as though teenage boys seeing porn is an inherently bad thing, in all instances.
Citation needed.
Re: What about Consent?
For "Normal" porn, the actors have been paid and consented (all kinds of issues and edge cases aside for a simplistic view);
For this site and others like it, you can make nudes of varying degrees of credulity of anyone, without their consent, knowledge, or compensation.
I offer no moral judgement on anyone who does or does not like nudes or porn; Doing it this way removes consent and recompense, nuding people against their will for, in the best most innocent case, your own personal gratification, with a sliding scale down to reputation damage, revenge, blackmail, and illegal categories of photos.
Everyone clamouring for censorship in the UK.
But condemning China and Russia for censoring the internet.
So... the watchdog snaps ineffectively at a site with no lock on the front door while 90% of kids just use a VPN to sneak in round the back...