San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has sent formal letters to Apple and Google demanding that they remove 13 apps from their app stores. These apps use artificial intelligence to create fake nude photos of real people without their permission. The letters, reported on July 17, 2026, accuse the two companies of "aiding and abetting" the spread of these images and demand they stop working with the developers who made the apps. (Engadget)

This is not the first step Chiu has taken. He previously filed a lawsuit against 16 websites that let users turn photos of real women and girls into AI-generated pornography. The new letters apply the same idea to the app stores themselves, arguing that Apple and Google are responsible for distributing the tools.

The money involved is part of the story. Chiu told Wired that Apple and Google have "likely made millions" from payments made inside these apps. That figure has not been independently confirmed, but it makes the issue about more than just cleaning up bad content. It puts the question of how much the platforms earned front and center.

A report from the Tech Transparency Project adds weight to the pressure. The group found that these apps often got past Apple's and Google's review systems, and that some were actively promoted inside the App Store and Google Play. The report also found that many of these apps had an "E" for Everyone rating, meaning children could download them. That combination is hard to match with the safety policies both companies say they follow.

Google has responded, at least in part. A spokesperson told Wired that Google had already removed hundreds of apps with these features, including five of the ones Chiu identified. Apple did not provide a comment to Wired before the story was published.

The broader context here is that the law around who is responsible for AI-generated harmful images is still being worked out, place by place. What Chiu is testing is whether app store operators can be treated as participants in spreading these apps, rather than as neutral pass-through services. The phrase "aiding and abetting" comes from criminal law, where it means helping someone do something illegal. If this argument holds up, it could change how Apple and Google handle not just moderation but how they approve apps and take a cut of their earnings across many types of apps, not just these.

The financial angle matters because it challenges the usual defense that platforms use. When Apple and Google take a percentage of the money people spend inside an app, they are not just passively hosting it. They are making money from it. Chiu's point about millions in revenue is meant to show that the platforms had a direct financial stake in keeping these apps available, which makes it harder for them to claim they had no role.

The "E" ratings add another problem. Age ratings exist to keep children away from things that could harm them. When an app that creates nonconsensual sexual imagery is rated as appropriate for everyone, the system has not just missed a rare case. It has gotten the product completely wrong. The question is what went wrong in the review process and whether the failure was caused by automated checks, human reviewers, or the way the system is designed.

Google's disclosure that it removed hundreds of these apps tells us something about scale. If hundreds existed on Google Play alone, this is not a few bad actors slipping through. It is a whole category of apps being built, submitted, approved, and distributed in large numbers. Apple's silence leaves open whether it has done a similar review of its own store or is still figuring out its exposure.

One thing to note is that no press release about these letters was visible on the San Francisco City Attorney's news page as of July 2, 2026. The most recent release on that page at the time was about Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The letters were either sent after July 2 or issued without a public announcement. That does not weaken the legal demand, but it does mean the City Attorney's own website had not yet caught up to the news reporting.

Looking ahead, the pressure on Apple and Google will not end with the removal of 13 apps. The argument Chiu is making, that app store operators should be legally and financially responsible for the apps they distribute and profit from, could reshape how platforms are governed if it holds up in court. The nudify app situation is an extreme case, which makes it a good test of the idea. But once a principle like that is established, it would not stop at extreme cases.

For now, the letters are demands, not court orders. Whether Apple and Google comply fully, comply partially, or fight the legal argument will determine whether this becomes a real turning point in holding platforms accountable for AI-generated harm or just another enforcement action that fades into quiet policy updates.