The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk’s Grok AI chatbot.

Speaking to Labour MPs on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer warned X could lose the “right to self regulate”.

“If X cannot control Grok, we will”, he said, saying the government would act quickly in response to the issue.

The government also plans to unveil legislation to make it illegal to supply online tools used to create such images.

The BBC has approached X for comment. It previously said: “Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

It comes hours after Ofcom announced it was launching an investigation into X over “deeply concerning reports” about Grok altering images of people.

If found to have broken the law, Ofcom can potentially issue X with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater.

And if X does not comply, Ofcom can seek a court order to force internet service providers to block access to the site in the UK altogether.

In a statement, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall urged the regulator not to take “months and months” to conclude its investigation, and demanded it set out a timeline “as soon as possible”.

It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but legislation in the Data (Use and Access) Act which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced until now, despite passing in June 2025.

Last week, campaigners accused the government of dragging its heels on implementing that law.

Liz Kendall told the Commons that the offence “will be brought into force this week”. In addition to the Data Act, Kendall said she would also make it a “priority offence” in the Online Safety Act.

Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person’s consent, were not “harmless images” but “weapons of abuse”.

“The content which has circulated on X is vile. It’s not just an affront to decent society, it is illegal,” she said.

“Let me be crystal clear – under the Online Safety Act, sharing intimate images of people without their consent, or threatening to share them, including pictures of people in their underwear, is a criminal offence for individuals and for platforms.

“This means individuals are committing a criminal offence if they create or seek to create such content including on X, and anyone who does this should expect to face the full extent of the law.”

But the technology secretary said the “responsibilities do not just lie with individuals for their own behaviour” – and “the platforms that host such material must be held accountable, including X”.

She said the government would also build on measures outlined in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise nudification apps.

“This new criminal offence will make it illegal for companies to supply tools designed to create non-consensual intimate images, targeting the problem at its source,” she said.

“In addition to all of these actions, we expect technology companies to introduce the steps recommended by Ofcom’s guidance on how to make platforms safer for women and girls without delay.

“If they do not, I am prepared to go further.”

Legal expert Jamie Hurworth said Kendall’s comments were “an indicator of how seriously the government are now taking this issue”.

“It remains to be seen whether an overstretched police force has sufficient resources to investigate and bring perpetrators before the courts but it is important that each link in the chain – from individual creators to social media platforms – is held to account for their involvement in this type of behaviour.”

Ofcom’s investigation will examine whether X has failed to take down illegal content quickly when it became aware of it, and taken “appropriate steps” to prevent people in the UK from seeing it.

The decision follows a global backlash over Grok’s image creation feature, with both Malaysia and Indonesia temporarily blocking access to the tool over the weekend.

An Ofcom spokesperson did not give an indication on how long the investigation would take but said it would be a “matter of the highest priority”.

In a response to an earlier post questioning why other AI platforms were not being looked at, Elon Musk said the UK government wanted “any excuse for censorship”.

But Kendall refuted this.

“This is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech,” she said.

“It is about tackling violence against women and girls.”

Shadow technology secretary Julia Lopez welcomed Ofcom’s investigation, and said her party supported the government on nudification tools.

But she criticised the government over comments Kendall made last week, when she said she would back Ofcom if it blocked UK access to X for failing to comply with laws.

Ms Lopez said despite the internet being used by criminals before, websites have not been banned before.

“It is an extraordinarily serious move against a platform that can be used for good, for uncovering scandal, sparking democratic revolution, and allowing day-to-day the free exchange of ideas, including ideas we don’t like.”

For almost 16 years, Pippa Begg ran Board Intelligence as co-chief executive with Jennifer Sundberg.

Together they grew the business, which provides analysis and services for company boards, and today it employs 200 staff and has big big name clients, including Nationwide, Rolls-Royce and Reckitt.

“We are quite different people – very much yin and yang – but I think decisions are better made with two brains rather than one as it stops hubris,” says Begg, who is London-based.

Begg and Sundberg are part of a trend, that’s seen more companies experimenting with a co-CEO leadership structure.

In 2015, there were 11 companies with co-CEOs in the Russell 3000 group of the biggest public companies in the US, while in 2024, this had more than doubled to 24, according to an analysis by public company intelligence firm MyLogIQ.

A raft of major companies also made such appointments in 2024, such as Oracle, Comcast, and Spotify. Netflix, meanwhile, has had co-CEOs since 2020.

Top corporate executives are well rewarded – a report from last year showed that chief executives at the UK’s biggest firms are paid, on average, 122 times the salary of the average full-time, UK worker.

However, there are downsides to being in charge.

According to a survey by leadership advisory firm ICEO, 56% of top executives felt burnt out in 2024.

A co-CEO model divides responsibility, accountability, and, ultimately, the burden between two people.

Leadership coach Audrey Hametner has observed that co-CEOs can take time out that sole CEOs might otherwise feel they can’t do. She recalls a CEO client who had not taken a holiday in five years, but was finally able to have a family holiday once he found a co-CEO partner.

Hametner says it also allows bosses to play to their strengths.

She gives the example of a previous client where one co-CEO worked more closely with the marketing and product departments, and the other mainly with finance, government regulatory bodies and legal.

“You may have co-CEOs where one is an outgoing and high-level thinker, who may find it more challenging to focus on all the small tasks, and the other CEO is more detail-oriented and loves to speak to the data and the nuances,” she says.

Sharing the workload may also give the co-CEOs more time with their family. That’s something they might be lacking – 60% of CEOs report spending too little time with their family, according to a study by executive search firm Russell Reynolds.

Begg took three maternity leaves of around six months in the space of five years, returning to work each time in a four-day week capacity.

Similarly, Sundberg took two maternity leaves in that period.

Begg notes that it’s unusual for a CEO on both counts.

Some female CEOs have been public about taking minimal maternity leave, with 71% of women in leadership positions taking less than six months’ leave for fear of jeopardising their jobs, according to data from That Works For Me.

The same study reveals a 32% drop in women at managerial level after having children.

Begg credits her co-CEO partnership for not turning her into another statistic.

“Without the co-CEO structure, the trade off would have either been too great for the business, or too great for the way that we wanted to have our children and have maternity leave,” she reflects.

“If we hadn’t had the co-CEO model, we probably would have felt that we needed to find a new CEO, or even sell the business, which are things that happen to so many female-run businesses because they don’t see how it’s going to work. Our experience was that this can really work.”

It’s been the case for Dhruv Amin and Marcus Lowe, the co-founders and co-CEOs of Anything, a startup focused on “vibe coding”, which allows anyone to create an app without knowing how to code.

Thanks to the set up, Amin was able to take two paternity leaves of three weeks each in 2024 and 2025.

“Marcus has covered for me twice. We’ve both had times when we’re gunning hard for the company, and times we’re not. The structure gives us permission to be human without everything falling apart,” says Amin, who is based in San Francisco.

In Finland, Denise Johansson was able to take three weeks away from work when her father died suddenly in 2024. She has been co-CEO and co-founder of payment processing platform Enfuce with Monika Liikamaa since 2016.

“It was not only a huge emotional shock, it also came with a lot of unexpected responsibility as I inherited another business at the same time,” says Johansson, who is based in Mariehamn, in the Åland Islands.

“Monika stepped in without hesitation, took on more of the day-to-day load, and created the space I needed to deal with both grief and practical issues.”

With six children between them, Johansson and Liikamaa are also able to take time with family while the other one holds the fort.

“If my kids need me, I will be off with them – no question. We coordinate so that key moments for our children are protected, while the company still has a steady hand on the wheel,” says Johansson.

Yet a co-CEO model has yet to become a mainstream, long-term solution. Salesforce, SAP and Marks and Spencer all appointed co-CEOs in the early 2020s, lasting no more than two years.

Tierney Remick is a Chicago-based vice chairman and co-leader of the global board and CEO practice at business consultancy Korn Ferry.

She’s observed that co-CEOs tend to work best at independent companies without complex structures, and with two people that have already worked together.

Otherwise, there can be power struggles, misalignment in vision, and confusion amongst the wider company.

“Leaders trying to establish their partnership, as well as drive the business and evolve the strategy – and doing it in a way that doesn’t create confusion in the organisation – is usually very difficult if they don’t know each other,” says Remick.

Co-CEO pairings can also be used as a type of succession planning to see if one will ultimately become the sole, core CEO, she adds.

“There’s a tremendous amount of succession planning happening at the moment. And there is the reality that the pipeline of ‘ready-now’ CEOs has decreased over the last several years,” she says.

“So we are seeing boards find different ways to expand the roles and responsibilities of high potential leaders, to see how they accelerate and grow in a market that is creating a lot of change and ambiguity every day.”

For Begg, her co-CEO days came to an end in 2024 when Board Intelligence acquired private equity backers, which became a natural point for Sundberg to stand down. Sundberg remains on the company’s advisory board.

Now Begg is the sole CEO, she acknowledges she has less time to spend with family, so her husband left his job to be more present at home.

After their youngest child started school last September, he set up a consultancy that he works on during school hours.

“He carries the load of home and family life. It still probably raises an eyebrow when he’s called into a meeting and he says it has to be between 10am and 3pm. They’ll be shocked that a man has said that,” says Begg.