Plymouth, Massachusetts Resident Reportedly Used AI Chatbots CrushOn.ai and JanitorAI to Harass and Intimidate Victims

In January 2025, James Florence Jr. of Plymouth, MA, agreed to plead guilty to cyberstalking charges involving the alleged use of AI tools like CrushOn.ai and JanitorAI. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reports the harassment spanned 2014–2024, though AI-driven tactics reportedly began around 2017. Florence allegedly created deepfake pornographic images, programmed AI chatbots to impersonate victims, distributed doctored content, exposed personal information, and encouraged online harassment.

Risk classification

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

The perpetrator used AI chatbots and generative tools to target, impersonate, and sexually humiliate specific victims for personal harassment and stalking purposes.

Additional risk subdomains

• 2.1 Compromise of privacy by obtaining, leaking or correctly inferring sensitive information: The chatbots were programmed with and leaked the victim's private personal information, including her home address and family details, to online users.
• 1.2 Exposure to toxic content: The perpetrator used generative AI tools to create non-consensual pornographic images of the victims to distribute online.

Causal factors

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

The severe risks and harms were caused by the intentional actions of a human user who programmed deployed AI chatbot platforms to stalk and harass victims.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

Limited Risk: The incident involves chatbots and AI-generated deepfakes, which are classified as limited risk systems requiring transparency under the EU AI Act.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: CrushOn.ai, JanitorAI
• AI purpose: Chatbot; Deepfake Image Generation
• Behaviour type: Assistant
• Alleged developer: JanitorAI, CrushOn.AI
• Alleged deployer: James Florence Jr.
• Alleged harmed parties: Six other women and a 17-year-old girl targeted by James Florence Jr., Families of victims targeted by James Florence Jr., Anonymous university professor targeted by James Florence Jr.

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Substantial. 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 Substantial, indirect Substantial
• Differential treatment: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Minor, indirect Minor
• Psychological: direct Minor, indirect Minor
• Epistemic: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Substantial, indirect Substantial

Malicious content

Reported: The report explicitly describes toxic and malicious content created and spread directly and indirectly by the incident.

Directly caused: The AI chatbots generated sexually explicit dialogue and invitations to the victim's home.

Indirectly caused: The perpetrator used generative AI tools to create and distribute non-consensual pornographic images of the victims on websites aimed at degrading women.

Inferred additional harm: Numerous online users on JanitorAI and CrushOn.ai were exposed to the toxic and sexually explicit impersonation content.

Differential treatment

Reported: The report explicitly describes differential treatment of individuals based on gender caused directly by the incident.

Directly caused: The perpetrator targeted women and a minor girl, using AI to generate sexualized content to shame and degrade them.

Inferred additional harm: The incident reflects a broader pattern of gender-based harassment and online violence targeting women.

Civil rights

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

Directly caused: The victims' rights to safety, privacy, and freedom from harassment were severely violated by the AI-facilitated stalking campaign.

Privacy

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

Directly caused: The AI chatbots disclosed the victim's private home address, date of birth, and family information to online users.

Indirectly caused: The perpetrator doxed the victims' personal identifying information alongside manipulated images on public websites.

Inferred additional harm: The private data of the other 7 victims may have also been exposed or compromised during the stalking campaign.

Psychological

Reported: The report explicitly describes severe psychological and mental-health harm to the victims caused by the incident.

Directly caused: The primary victim experienced extreme fear, distress, and humiliation due to the AI-enabled impersonation and harassment.

Indirectly caused: The victim's husband and the other targeted individuals suffered significant anxiety and fear for their safety, leading them to install security systems and carry weapons.

Inferred additional harm: It is highly likely that all 8 victims suffered long-term psychological trauma, anxiety, and paranoia requiring professional support.

Epistemic

Reported: The report explicitly describes epistemic harm caused directly by the incident.

Directly caused: The AI chatbots fabricated the identity of the professor, generating false statements about her sexual preferences and availability.

Inferred additional harm: Online users interacting with the chatbots were misled into believing they were interacting with or learning true facts about the real professor.

Child sexual exploitation and abuse

Reported: The report explicitly describes a CSEA incident as reported by the source.

Directly caused: The perpetrator digitally altered pictures of a 17-year-old girl to depict her as nude or semi-nude.

Indirectly caused: The perpetrator was found in possession of child pornography, though the direct role of AI in generating that specific material is not fully detailed.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 8
• People reportedly exposed: 8

Potential causes

Management

• Inadequate Platform Oversight: Companies failed to monitor public bots or respond to abuse reports.
• Poor Risk Assessment: Management failed to anticipate weaponization of chatbots for stalking.

Technology

• Customizable Chatbot Creation: Platforms allowed users to program custom chatbots with explicit behaviors.
• Generative AI Image Synthesis: Generative tools enabled creation of realistic pornographic deepfakes.

Data Inputs

• Unfiltered PII Uploads: Platforms accepted real addresses and personal history without validation.
• Non-Consensual Image Input: User uploaded victim photos to train chatbot and generate deepfakes.

Human Factors

• Malicious Perpetrator Intent: Defendant intentionally weaponized AI platforms to harass and stalk victims.
• Gullible Third-Party Users: Online users interacted with the bot and acted on its real-world invitations.

Process and Methods

• Deficient Content Moderation: No automated filters to block creation of non-consensual personas.
• Absence of Identity Checks: No verification processes to ensure chatbot creators owned the persona.

Regulatory Environment

• Lax Generative AI Laws: Lack of strong legal frameworks preventing impersonation via AI chatbots.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The reports provide clear, detailed, and consistent information regarding the perpetrator's actions, the platforms used (JanitorAI, CrushOn.ai), the specific harms suffered by the victims, and the legal outcomes. The role of AI in automating and escalating the harassment is explicitly documented in court filings.
• Ambiguities identified: The exact generative AI tools used to create the fake nude images are not specified beyond being generative artificial-intelligence tools.
• Alternative interpretations: None.

A US domestic criminal case where an individual utilized generative AI chatbots and deepfake tools to conduct a severe, multi-year cyberstalking and harassment campaign against eight victims. While representing a concerning evolution in AI-enabled personal targeting, the incident was resolved by law enforcement and carries negligible national security implications.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: Individual

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The perpetrator has been arrested and pleaded guilty, resolving the immediate threat, though the strategic risk of AI-enabled stalking remains.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI systems acted as tools directly programmed and leveraged by a human operator who made all key decisions regarding targeting and deployment.
• Novelty: Evolved capability. Represents a significant escalation of traditional cyberstalking by using generative AI chatbots to automate and scale impersonation and harassment.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. The threat of physical harm was localized to specific individuals and handled by local law enforcement, with no impact on critical infrastructure or national physical security.
• Information security: Negligible. The impersonation and deepfakes were limited to personal harassment of private citizens, with no involvement of state actors or targeting of national intelligence or leadership.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. The incident was a domestic criminal case with no impact on state authority, electoral systems, or core government functions.
• Economic security: Negligible. No strategic technologies were compromised, and there was no impact on national financial systems or economic security.
• Societal stability: Minor. Represents a severe violation of individual privacy and human rights for eight victims, but the impact is localized and managed through standard domestic criminal justice procedures.