Can Elon Musk's X be held accountable for Grok’s AI content? What we know so far

Social media platform X could potentially be held accountable for content produced by its artificial intelligence tool, Grok, PTI reported on Friday citing a government source.

A definitive legal stance on the matter is expected to be clarified soon, amid growing concerns over the AI chatbot’s unfiltered and controversial responses to user queries.

When asked whether X could be held responsible for Grok-generated content, the person reportedly told PTI, “Prima facie, it seems Yes. It is my personal view, but the same has to be legally scrutinised.”

Why Grok’s AI content created buzz

Grok, developed by Elon Musk’s xAI, has grabbed the attention of social media users in India for mirroring the tone and language of user prompts, even when they include slang or abusive remarks.

The controversy erupted when an X user asked Grok to list the “10 best mutuals” and, after receiving no response, hurled insults at the chatbot. Grok fired back with a casual, slur-laden reply, leaving users stunned.

The chatbot has since been trending as users flood X with questions about political figures, historical events, and contentious topics.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is reportedly engaging with X to investigate the issue and understand the AI’s operations.

“We are in touch, talking to them to find out why this is happening and what the issues are. They are engaging with us,” the person said.

This is not the first time generative AI has stirred trouble in India. Last year, Google’s Gemini faced backlash for derogatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The government took immediate action and issued guidelines on AI.

The guidelines to check social media content are in place, and the companies need to adhere to them, the person mentioned above reportedly said.

X sues Indian govt

Elon Musk’s social media company has already entered into a legal battle with the Centre after it filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which mandates intermediaries to remove objectionable content upon official orders.

X argues that this provision, combined with the government’s interpretation, violates free expression and contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal ruling, which limits content blocking to judicial processes or Section 69A of the IT Act.

Section 79 (1) of the IT Act provides protection to social media platforms from liability for objectionable content posted by their users. The sub-section 2 of section 79 describes the condition for an intermediary, and sub-section 3 of section 79 of the IT Act prescribes the conditions when the protection granted to a social media platform will not apply.

The lawsuit alleged that the government is using the section to create a parallel content-blocking mechanism, bypassing the structured legal process outlined in Section 69A.

"Section 79(3)(b) comes into play if an intermediary does not remove objectionable content as per the order authorised government bodies. By doing so, if a social media platform is ready to take liability or ownership of user-generated content, then it can be prosecuted, and the social media platform will always have the option to approach court against the prosecution. Therefore, it is finally courts that will have the final say in the contention," the source noted.