New Jersey Man Cornelius Shannon Allegedly Published Hundreds of AI-Generated Deepfake Pornography Albums in TAKE IT DOWN Act Case

In one of the first prosecutions under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, DOJ alleged that New Jersey defendant Cornelius Shannon published at least 360 albums of AI-generated deepfake pornography depicting about 90 women, including public figures, beginning during a charged period anchored to May 2025. Prosecutors said the content appeared on an adult image- and video-sharing platform and was viewed millions of times.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 4 Malicious actors
• Primary risk subdomain: 4.3 Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation

The defendants used AI systems to generate and publish nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes of specific identifiable women, which constitutes targeted humiliation and creation of sexual imagery.

Additional risk subdomains

• 1.2 Exposure to toxic content: The generated deepfake pornography was published on public adult platforms and viewed millions of times, exposing internet users to toxic and nonconsensual explicit content.

Causal factors

• Entity: Human
• Intent: Intentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The incident was caused by human defendants who intentionally used deployed generative AI tools to create and distribute nonconsensual deepfake pornography.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Limited Risk: The report describes the creation of 'AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfake) pornography' which falls under the transparency and disclosure obligations of Limited Risk systems.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: unspecified
• AI purpose: Deepfake Image Generation; Deepfake Video Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Deepfake technology developers
• Alleged deployer: Deepfake creators, Cornelius Shannon
• Alleged harmed parties: Women, Victims of deepfake abuse, Impersonated public figures, Epistemic integrity, celebrities

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Minor. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Malicious content

Reported: The report explicitly describes the creation and distribution of toxic and malicious content.

Directly caused: The defendants created and published hundreds of albums of AI-generated deepfake pornography depicting approximately 140 women on adult content platforms.

Inferred additional harm: The content was viewed millions of times across adult platforms, spreading toxic and nonconsensual explicit content widely across the internet.

Civil rights

Reported: The report explicitly describes violations of human and civil rights caused directly by the incident.

Directly caused: The nonconsensual creation and publication of intimate images violated the basic privacy and dignity rights of approximately 140 women.

Privacy

Reported: The report explicitly describes privacy violations caused directly by the incident.

Directly caused: The defendants violated the privacy of approximately 140 women by using their likenesses to generate nonconsensual intimate images.

Psychological

Reported: The report explicitly describes psychological and emotional harm to the victims caused by the incident.

Directly caused: The FBI stated that this predatory conduct inflicts emotional harm on victims, violating their privacy, dignity, and security, and constitutes psychological and reputational abuse.

Inferred additional harm: It is highly likely that all 140 identified victims suffered severe psychological distress, anxiety, and trauma due to their likenesses being sexualized and distributed to millions of viewers.

Epistemic

Reported: The report explicitly describes epistemic harm through the creation of digital forgeries.

Directly caused: The defendants generated realistic digital forgeries depicting real people engaging in explicit sexual acts they did not perform, creating false photographic evidence.

Inferred additional harm: The proliferation of such deepfakes erodes public trust in visual media and makes it harder to verify genuine versus fabricated imagery.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 2
• People reportedly harmed: 140
• People reportedly exposed: 3000000

Potential causes

Management

• Platform Profit and Engagement Focus: Websites hosted explicit content to drive millions of views and traffic.

Technology

• Sophisticated Generative AI Tools: Allowed users to easily morph real photos into explicit sexual images.
• Lack of Guardrails in AI Tools: AI tools like Grok lacked blocks to prevent generating explicit deepfakes.

Data Inputs

• Use of Non-Consensual Real Photos: Defendants used real public and private photos of victims to generate fakes.

Human Factors

• Predatory Intent of Defendants: Defendants actively sought to degrade and violate victims for online views.

Process and Methods

• Inadequate Platform Moderation: Websites failed to quickly remove nonconsensual intimate deepfake images.
• Lack of Image Removal Processes: Platforms lacked clear processes for victims to request removal of deepfakes.

Regulatory Environment

• Historical Regulatory Gaps: The TAKE IT DOWN Act was only recently enacted to criminalize deepfakes.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The reports provide clear, detailed, and consistent information regarding the arrests, the specific charges under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, the number of victims (~140), and the scale of the distribution (millions of views). The role of AI as a tool for generating deepfakes is explicitly stated.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI models or platforms used by the defendants to generate the deepfakes are not identified in the reports.
• Alternative interpretations: None. The facts of the criminal complaints are straightforward.

Two US citizens were arrested for creating and distributing hundreds of albums of AI-generated nonconsensual deepfake pornography depicting approximately 140 women, including public and political figures. While the incident represents a severe violation of individual privacy and human dignity, its direct national security impact is minor and manageable under domestic law enforcement procedures.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Cornelius Shannon and Arturo Hernandez

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The immediate threat from these individuals is resolved following their arrests, though the proliferation of deepfakes remains an ongoing strategic concern.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The defendants actively and intentionally used generative AI tools to create and distribute the illicit content, with no autonomous AI decision-making.
• Novelty: Established threat. The creation of nonconsensual deepfake pornography is an established threat, though this case represents some of the first prosecutions under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical infrastructure, kinetic targeting, or human safety threats were reported in connection with this incident.
• Information security: Minor. Deepfakes targeted some public and political figures, but the activity was criminally motivated rather than part of a coordinated foreign information warfare or intelligence operation.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. No disruption to state authority, electoral systems, or core government decision-making processes was indicated.
• Economic security: Negligible. The incident does not involve threats to financial systems, strategic technology theft, or national economic stability.
• Societal stability: Minor. The incident caused severe psychological harm and violated the privacy and civil rights of 140 victims, but does not pose a systemic threat to broader social cohesion or national stability.