Clothoff, a nudify app used to create fake nude images from photos of real people, is reportedly trying to expand its reach rather than retreat under legal pressure. A whistleblower with “access to internal company information” as a former Clothoff employee told Der Spiegel that the app’s operators “seem unimpressed by the lawsuit” brought by San Francisco’s city attorney, David Chiu.
The same report says Clothoff has not only continued operating, but has “bought up an entire network of nudify apps.” Der Spiegel found evidence that Clothoff today owns at least 10 other nudify services, with “monthly views ranging between hundreds of thousands to several million.”
A network built for scale
Clothoff is described as one of the leading apps for quickly and cheaply making fake nudes from images of real people. The low cost of generating convincing fake nudes, described in the source as just a few bucks, helps explain why the business model appears to depend on volume: many users, many repeat visits, and many destinations where users can be routed.
According to the whistleblower, Clothoff runs on an annual budget of around $3.5 million. The company’s marketing has also changed since launch, with the report saying it now largely relies on Telegram bots and X channels to aim ads at young men likely to use its apps.
Der Spiegel’s reporting describes a “large-scale marketing plan” for Germany. The alleged campaign would use “naked images of well-known influencers, singers, and actresses” and draw clicks with the tagline “you choose who you want to undress.”
A few of the stars named in that plan told Der Spiegel they had not agreed to that use of their likenesses. Some representatives suggested they would pursue legal action if the campaign ever launched.
Where the marketing was aimed
The whistleblower told Der Spiegel that most of Clothoff’s marketing budget goes toward “advertising posts in special Telegram channels, in sex subs on Reddit, and on 4chan.” Reddit, however, told Ars that Clothoff URLs have been banned from Reddit since 2024 and that “Reddit does not allow paid advertising against NSFW content or otherwise monetize it.”
The reported ad targeting was broad but specific. The plan allegedly focused on “men between 16 and 35” with interests that included “memes” and “video games,” alongside “right-wing extremist ideas,” “misogyny,” and “Andrew Tate,” an influencer criticized for promoting misogynistic views to teen boys.
Similar celebrity-focused campaigns were reported for British, French, and Spanish markets. In the US, Clothoff has already appeared in major legal disputes, including Chiu’s lawsuit and a complaint from a high schooler in New Jersey.
That New Jersey case involves a boy who allegedly used Clothoff to nudify one of the student’s Instagram photos taken when she was 14 years old, then shared it with other boys on Snapchat. The source article says consequences for young boys who create or share fake nude images of classmates have ranged from suspensions to juvenile criminal charges.
Legal pressure has not stopped Clothoff
Chiu’s lawsuit was filed in an effort to shut down Clothoff and several other nudify apps. His office has reached a settlement shutting down two websites, porngen.art and undresser.ai, but attempts to serve Clothoff through available legal channels have not been successful.
Alex Barrett-Shorter, deputy press secretary for Chiu’s office, told Ars that the office is continuing its efforts to serve Clothoff through available legal channels as the lawsuit moves through the court system.
Meanwhile, Clothoff has continued to evolve. The app recently marketed a feature that it claims attracted more than a million users interested in making explicit videos from a single picture.
The Take It Down Act has also passed since the San Francisco city attorney and the New Jersey high schooler filed their lawsuits. The source says the law makes it easier to force platforms to remove AI-generated fake nudes, but experts expect legal challenges over censorship fears, meaning the limited tool might not withstand scrutiny.
Disputes over ownership and safeguards
Der Spiegel’s effort to identify Clothoff’s operators led reporters to Eastern Europe after they found a “database accidentally left open on the Internet.” The outlet said the database seemingly exposed “four central people behind the website.”
That finding was described as “consistent” with the whistleblower’s claim that all Clothoff employees “work in countries that used to belong to the Soviet Union.” Der Spiegel also reported that all internal Clothoff communications it reviewed were written in Russian, and that the site’s email service is based in Russia.
A person claiming to be a Clothoff spokesperson named Elias denied knowing the four people identified by Der Spiegel and disputed the $3 million budget figure. Elias said a nondisclosure agreement prevented him from discussing the team further. After Der Spiegel contacted Clothoff, the outlet said the database was taken down.
Elias also denied that Clothoff intended to use celebrity influencers, saying that “Clothoff forbids the use of photos of people without their consent.” He further denied that Clothoff could be used to nudify images of minors.
Der Spiegel reported a conflicting account from one Clothoff user who spoke anonymously. The user said an attempt to generate a fake nude of a US singer first failed because she “looked like she might be underage,” but a second attempt a few days later succeeded. The source says that suggests Clothoff’s age detection may not work perfectly.
The wider harm behind the product
The report’s central issue is not only that Clothoff exists, but that its alleged growth strategy appears to normalize using real people’s images as raw material for fake sexual content. Celebrities such as Taylor Swift have struggled to combat deepfake nudes spreading online, and tools like Clothoff are increasingly used to torment young girls in middle and high school.
One anonymous user who spoke to Der Spiegel described why he did not feel deeply conflicted about generating fake nudes of a famous singer: “There are enough pictures of her on the Internet as it is.” The same user said he would be horrified if someone produced such photos of his daughter.
That contradiction captures the broader problem. Clothoff’s reported marketing plan treats attention, celebrity, and social platforms as growth channels, while the people depicted in fake nudes bear the harm. The legal and platform responses described in the source show pressure building, but they also show how difficult it remains to identify operators, serve lawsuits, and stop a fast-moving network of nudify apps.