Apple and Google Ordered to Remove 'Nudify' Apps

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sent formal cease-and-desist letters to Apple and Google on Thursday, July 17, 2026, demanding both companies remove AI-powered "nudify" or "undress" apps from the App Store and Google Play. The letters target 13 apps specifically, eight on the App Store and five on Google Play, that market themselves publicly as face-swapping tools but are used to generate non-consensual, AI-manipulated nude images of real people.

What the apps do: These apps use generative AI to digitally strip clothing from uploaded photos of real people without their consent. One app with more than a million downloads reportedly advertised over a dozen image "styles" with names like "bikini queen curvy" and "cinematic intimacy," many depicting sexualized renderings of women. A Tech Transparency Project report from January 2026, followed by an April 2026 update, had already flagged that these apps remained available and continued generating revenue on both platforms despite prior notice, some were even reportedly rated "E for Everyone," making them accessible to children.

The legal basis: Chiu's letters invoke California's law criminalizing conduct that "knowingly facilitates" or "recklessly aids or abets" the creation of non-consensual deepfake pornography, along with a 2025 California law letting victims pursue civil claims against third-party facilitators. Crucially, the letters frame Apple and Google not as passive infrastructure but as active distributors, arguing the companies have likely earned millions of dollars in fees from these apps and are effectively "aiding and abetting" their sale. Chiu is giving both companies a deadline (reported as roughly 28 days) to comply or face potential litigation.

Company response so far: Apple's response was immediate but narrow, it confirmed removing three of the apps named in the letter and said it was terminating the associated developer accounts. Google reportedly suspended five apps. Neither response addresses the broader moderation gap that let these apps persist and generate revenue for months after being flagged.

Not Chiu's first move in this space: His office previously sued 16 deepfake websites over similar non-consensual intimate imagery, and separately, Senator Jon Ossoff's office sent Apple its own letter on nudify apps earlier this year, citing survey data that 16% of US teens report knowing someone personally targeted by an AI-generated deepfake image as a minor, and 11% report deepfake nudes of themselves as minors being shared or reshared.

Why this case matters beyond these 13 apps. This is being described as the first municipal-level app-store removal mandate of its kind targeting AI-generated content in the US. If it holds up, or if Apple and Google comply broadly rather than narrowly, it sets a template other city and state attorneys general could replicate, turning app-store moderation of AI harms into a patchwork of local enforcement actions rather than something resolved once at the federal level.

The core legal argument is about platforms as distributors, not just hosts. Chiu's framing, that Apple and Google "aided and abetted" by taking a revenue cut and providing distribution, tries to puncture the traditional line platforms use to avoid liability (we're just a marketplace, not the publisher). Whether this framing succeeds matters far beyond nudify apps: it's the same argument used in broader debates over platform liability for AI-generated harmful content generally.

The moderation gap points to a structural, not accidental, problem. These apps weren't obscure, one had over a million downloads and ran paid advertising on YouTube and X, per Wired's parallel reporting, which found major platforms function as discovery engines funneling users to these apps' download pages. That both companies had already been notified via the Tech Transparency Project's January and April reports, yet allegedly took no meaningful action until a legal threat arrived, suggests economic incentives (app-store fees, ad revenue) outweighed enforcement of existing anti-pornography developer policies until the cost of inaction rose.

The response asymmetry is worth watching. Apple pulling 3 of 8 flagged apps and Google suspending 5 of 5 is a narrow, reactive compliance move, not a systemic fix. Unless the companies change proactive detection and vetting processes (rather than just removing the specific apps named in a legal letter), the same category of app is likely to resurface under different names, a pattern already observed with prior takedown waves.

Moving ahead, this lands amid intensifying scrutiny of AI-generated non-consensual imagery generally, alongside deepfake abuse cases in other jurisdictions (India's surge in synthetic media cases, the UK's Ofcom age-assurance push) and growing federal attention (Sen. Ossoff's letter). Together, these suggest 2026 is becoming a turning point year where regulators are shifting from targeting individual bad actors or websites toward holding the distribution layer, app stores, ad networks, and social platforms, accountable for enabling scale.