When Elon Musk’s Grok app unveiled its Imagine feature this summer, most of the headlines focused on the playful (and controversial) “Spicy” mode, which allows looser, less filtered outputs. But beneath the hype, a smaller update may prove more consequential: the Access to Speech feature.

This new tool lets users generate short AI-animated videos simply by speaking prompts aloud. On the surface, it looks like a usability perk. For lawyers, regulators, and anyone watching the fast-moving legal tech space, it raises much bigger questions about accessibility, authorship, liability, and data rights.

What Grok Imagine Does

Grok Imagine, launched in mid-2025, is Musk’s answer to the growing field of AI video tools. Think of it as a revival of Vine, only instead of filming your own clips, you provide a prompt typed or spoken and the system generates a 6–15 second animated video with sound.

The tool offers four creative modes:

- Normal (mainstream safe use) - Fun (lighthearted, playful results) - Custom (tailored outputs) - Spicy (minimal content restrictions, and already a lightning rod for deepfake concerns)

While casual users play with Spicy, lawyers should pay close attention to the quieter voice-input feature.

Accessibility Meets Compliance

Allowing voice input makes Grok Imagine more inclusive, particularly for users with limited mobility or difficulty typing. In theory, this could support compliance with accessibility laws such as: - The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the U.S. - The Equality Act 2010 in the UK.

But legal tech experts know accessibility is a double-edged sword. Once features like voice input become widely available, courts and regulators may begin asking: is this now a standard? If so, companies that lack comparable accessibility options could face pressure or even liability for failing to provide them.

Intellectual Property: Who Owns a Spoken Prompt?

The more complex legal issue comes with authorship. If a user speaks an idea into Grok Imagine and the AI generates a video, who owns the output? - In the U.S., the Copyright Office has consistently refused to grant copyright to works “not created by a human author.” - Yet if a human provides the spoken idea, is there a case for shared authorship? - In commercial contexts say, advertising generated from voice prompts this grey zone could become a litigation risk.

As AI video tools expand, expect intellectual property lawyers to confront more disputes over ownership of “voice-to-video” works.

Deepfakes and Liability: The Spicy Factor

The legal risks grow when Access to Speech intersects with Spicy mode. A user can simply say “make a video of [celebrity name] in X scenario” and produce a deepfake-style clip within seconds.

That raises at least three major concerns: 1. Right of publicity – In the U.S., celebrities and private individuals alike can sue for unauthorized commercial use of their likeness. 2. Defamation – Harmful or false portrayals could expose both users and platforms to claims. 3. Privacy – EU and UK law offers strong protections against misuse of personal images and reputations.

So where does liability land? With the platform (xAI)? With the user? Or both? Courts are likely to wrestle with this as AI video tools spread.

Voice Data as Biometric Information

Voice prompts mean Grok is collecting voice recordings, which may be treated as biometric data in some jurisdictions. That triggers strict compliance regimes: - GDPR (EU/UK) – classifies voice as personal data, requiring clear consent and purpose limitations. - California CCPA/CPRA – expands consumer rights over stored data. - Illinois BIPA – one of the toughest U.S. biometric privacy laws