Full Report
Warning: This article discusses non-consensual sexually explicit content and Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). Clothoff, one of the most notorious apps for non-consensual deepfake pornographic material, claims that it is donating funds to “support those affected by AI”, highlighting its collaboration with an organisation named ASU Label that says it aims to “protect your rights […] The post Deepfake Porn App Clothoff Claims to be Donating to Help AI Victims appeared first on bellingcat.
Analysis Summary
# Industry News: Suspicious Association Between Non-Consensual Deepfake App and "AI Safety" Entity
## Summary
A report details a suspicious partnership between "Clothoff," a notorious platform distributing explicit non-consensual deepfake content, and a recently formed entity named "ASU Label" (AisafeUse Label), which claims to offer support for victims of AI harm. The association is highly questionable as ASU Label lacks transparency regarding its registration, funding, and support mechanisms, while simultaneously utilizing AI-generated text on its own site, leading to concerns about potential reputational laundering or a sophisticated disinformation tactic.
## Key Details
- Date: Disclosures noted beginning December 2024.
- Companies Involved: Clothoff (non-consensual deepfake application operator) and ASU Label (AisafeUse Label).
- Category: Partnership/Association Disclosure; Alleged Misinformation/Reputational Context.
## The Story
Bellingcat uncovered a link between Clothoff—an app operating image removal/undressing technology for explicit non-consensual deepfakes—and an organization called ASU Label, which purports to "support those affected by AI." Clothoff began directing users to ASU Label, claiming to donate funds to them. ASU Label claims to assist victims of unsafe neural network use, yet it provides no verifiable evidence of non-profit registration, operational structure, or specific support mechanisms. Furthermore, multiple AI detection tools suggest ASU Label's website content itself is largely AI-generated, creating a significant contradiction given its stated mission to combat AI deception. Key personnel and organizational documents remain undisclosed, with ASU Label citing "adversaries" as the reason for non-disclosure.
## Business Impact
### For the Companies Involved
- **Clothoff:** This association appears to be a poorly executed attempt at reputational defense or "AI risk mitigation theater," potentially aiming to superficially address the severe ethical and legal fallout from its core business model. It draws further negative scrutiny to their operations.
- **ASU Label:** Its credibility is severely undermined. By aligning with a high-profile purveyor of illegal and harmful content (CSAM/non-consensual deepfakes), its stated mission of protecting individuals from AI harm becomes contradictory and highly suspect, regardless of any claimed charitable intent.
### For Competitors
- **Legitimate AI Safety/Victim Support Organizations:** Organizations genuinely focused on combating deepfake abuse and assisting victims face increased skepticism. This association muddies the waters, making it harder for trustworthy entities to gain traction and funding when obvious association scams exist.
### For Customers
- **End Users of Harmful AI Tools:** Victims of non-consensual deepfakes who seek legitimate resources may be confused or misled if they encounter references to ASU Label.
- **Skeptical Public:** Increased awareness of dubious "AI safety" front groups associated with bad actors may lead to general distrust of cybersecurity and AI ethics claims from smaller, unverified entities.
### For the Market
- **AI Ethics & Compliance Market:** Highlights a growing risk vector where malicious entities attempt to create superficial "ethics" veneers to obscure harmful practices, challenging regulators and genuine safety advocates to distinguish substance from performance.
## Technical Implications
The report notes that AI detection tools showed a high probability (90-100%) that ASU Label's website text was AI-generated. This suggests that the entity responsible for the claimed "victim support" may be relying heavily on generative AI for basic communication, which is ironic given the warnings their content issues regarding AI-based deception.
## Strategic Analysis
- **Market Positioning:** Clothoff is attempting to position itself as responsive, however transparently, to criticism, while ASU Label is positioning itself as a necessary countermeasure to AI risks.
- **Competitive Advantage:** Neither entity gains a legitimate advantage. Clothoff faces accelerated reputational damage, and ASU Label’s lack of provenance and contradictory messaging negate any perceived benefit from the association. In fact, the disclosure severely damages any potential for future legitimacy.
- **Challenges:** The primary challenge for ASU Label is proving its existence and legitimacy to regulators and the public. For Clothoff, the challenge remains addressing the fundamental illegality and ethical violations of its core service.
## Industry Reactions
- **Analyst Opinions:** Industry analysts would likely view this as a classic example of "smokescreen operational security" or an attempt to create a distraction narrative after facing scrutiny. The lack of non-profit validation and the AI-generated text strongly suggest a coordinated disinformation effort rather than genuine activism.
- **Expert Commentary:** Cybersecurity and digital forensics experts would focus on the domain registration dates, the use of vague contact methods, and the clear contradiction between the actions of Clothoff and the purported aims of ASU Label.
- **Market Response:** The market response is likely minimal unless Clothoff or ASU Label claim affiliation with larger, recognized tech companies. The immediate impact is primarily reputational harm to the concepts of third-party AI ethics auditing.
## Future Outlook
- **Predictions and Expectations:** Regulatory bodies investigating non-consensual deepfake platforms are likely to use this association as evidence of attempts to obfuscate operations. Further investigation into the true ownership and funding of ASU Label is expected.
- **What to watch for:** Whether any official bodies (law enforcement, non-profit registries) make statements regarding ASU Label, or if the domain/contact information disappears following widespread reporting.
## For Security Professionals
This case serves as a powerful reminder that organizational claims of "AI safety" or "ethical partnerships" must be aggressively scrutinized for provenance, legal standing, and consistency with their stated mission, particularly when dealing with entities involved in illicit content generation such as non-consensual deepfakes. Security teams should be wary of third-party risk associated with any organization publicly partnering with blacklisted or known malicious entities.