Read and captured 9 September 2026. The acquired instrument is a stipulated final judgment against Briver LLC in a multi-defendant case, not a judgment against every website or every captioned defendant. Its court signature and filing stamp are visible. The operative obligations are much more specific than the city announcement, while actual payment and continuing compliance remain unverified.
Primary sources are the [City Attorney’s 2 June 2025 announcement](http[local research file] and a [copy of the signed judgment republished by Columbia Law School](http[local research file] The present SF.gov page contains no judgment attachment href in either its rendered anchors or retained structured body. The Columbia copy was discovered independently; it is not represented as a direct city or court download. The original PDF is image-only. All 13 PDF pages were read visually from retained renders, including both counterpart signature pages and the service certificate.
The case is People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu v. Sol Ecom, Inc., et al., CGC-24-617237, San Francisco Superior Court. The instrument’s stipulating parties are the People and Briver LLC (PDF 2, opening paragraph and ¶4). Its caption includes other defendants; the announcement expressly says litigation continues against remaining defendants. It separately describes allegations that Briver operated two websites. Neither the ten-site outcome nor the full defendant roster can be assigned to this one judgment.
PDF 1 bears a FILED May 30, 2025 court stamp; the proposed designation is crossed out. PDF 12 / printed page 11 bears Judge Ethan P. Schulman’s signature dated May 29, 2025. PDF 13 contains Deputy Clerk Edward Santos’s certificate of electronic service on May 30, 2025 through File & ServeXpress. Paragraph 19 says the court enters judgment in the People’s favor. Together these show a court-signed, filed final-judgment copy, rather than an unsigned proposed instrument. A separate register-of-actions entry was not acquired.
The judge-signature date matters: ¶6 defines the Effective Date as the date the court signs, so the visible operative reference date is 29 May 2025. The city announcement says approval occurred on May 30; preserve that as the office’s wording and distinguish it from signature, filing and service. The two Briver representatives sign “on behalf of Briver”: Yuannan Cai, May 27, 2025, and Xiulu Yuan, May 26, 2025 (PDF 12). The page does not identify their ownership percentages or corporate offices. PDF 11 has blank Briver and judge lines but contains the city counsel’s approved-as-form signature; PDF 12 is the signed counterpart. Paragraph 45 expressly allows counterpart signatures, so the blank lines on PDF 11 do not establish non-execution.
The opening stipulation (PDF 2) states that no proof is taken and the judgment is not evidence of, or an admission concerning, alleged legal or factual issues; the stipulating parties waive appeal. Allegations and the negotiated obligations must remain distinct. Paragraphs 11–12 invoke Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.; ¶13 preserves continuing jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure 664.6. The judgment predates AB 621’s enactment and is not evidence of application of its 2026 notice presumption.
| Actor and action | Operative scope and locator |
|---|---|
| Briver: permanent operating prohibition | ¶14, PDF 3: Briver must not own, operate, or aid and abet any website using AI models to convert clothed images of identifiable individuals into nude or sexually explicit images of those individuals. The clause has no express consent exception; retain this wording rather than silently narrowing it to the announcement’s NCII label. It concerns this specified image-transformation activity, not every AI service. |
| Briver: non-transfer and domain inactivity | ¶15, PDF 3: for five years after effectiveness, Briver shall not transfer registration for the defined Briver Websites and must maintain registration in inactive hold/lock status so the domains do not resolve in DNS and are unavailable publicly. Read with ¶17(b)–(c) and ¶18, which require no transfer of website ownership and documentary evidence of continued registration to Briver or an affiliate. The clause prohibits transfer; a transfer recipient is not an unresolved term. The five-year period does not expressly terminate ¶14’s permanent prohibition. |
| Briver: investigation information | ¶16, PDF 4: within 30 days of effectiveness, provide all relevant registered website names; information about the image-processing API and affiliate programme, its source, sharing websites and their operators; a summary and explanation of the underlying technology, including the model and any training data; and other known similar-site operators, particularly in California. These are disclosure obligations, not acquired disclosures. |
| Briver: recurring sworn proof | ¶17–18, PDF 4–5: an authorized representative must attest under penalty of perjury within 14 days, and annually for five years, to the operating prohibition, non-transfer of website ownership and continued inactive registrations. Documentary evidence must accompany each attestation. If late, the People must notify Briver; there is a 14-day cure period after receipt before non-submission counts as a violation. |
| City Attorney: bounded inspection | ¶24, PDF 6: on reasonable request, representatives may inspect Briver and affiliated persons’ or entities’ domain-registration and related records, solely to determine compliance with this judgment. This is not an unlimited general data-access entitlement. |
| Court: enforcement and modification | ¶26, PDF 6: a regularly noticed motion and hearing must precede the court’s finding of violation and additional civil penalties, reasonable enforcement/monitoring fees and costs, or further injunctive relief. ¶37–38, PDF 8, preserve modification for materially inaccurate or intentionally false information on a motion supported by adequate proof, and continuing jurisdiction. ¶43, PDF 9: modifications require a court order on noticed motion, or written party consent and court approval. |
The definition of Briver in ¶1 includes specified successors, agents, representatives, employees, members, owners, managers, directors, officers and affiliated persons/entities before and after dissolution. The distinct joint-and-several clause ¶25 names Briver and associated persons/entities as of August 14, 2024. Those provisions should not be collapsed into a finding that all case defendants, all future affiliates, or all service providers were adjudged liable.
The defined Briver Websites in ¶2 include the domain strings porngen.art, undresser.ai and nudegenerator.ai, plus further Briver websites identified under ¶16(a). Those are website identifiers, not separate legal defendants. They were not visited. The announcement’s reference to allegations involving two websites and its broader ten-site outcome use different counting frames.
¶19–23, PDF 5: the judgment imposes USD 100,000 in civil penalties. Briver must pay the City Attorney’s Office USD 50,000 within 30 days of effectiveness, then five USD 10,000 instalments dated July 1, August 1, September 1, October 1 and November 1, 2025, by wire under city instructions. The schedule totals USD 100,000; it does not prove receipt. Paragraph 22 provides acceleration upon failure to receive payment within one business day of a deadline, with ten-percent annual interest on unpaid balance. The packet does not establish that default occurred or calculate an actual accrued balance.
¶35, PDF 8: except as otherwise specified, the parties waive settlement-related fees and costs. Accordingly, the USD 100,000 is not described as a combined fees/penalty award. Enforcement fees and costs are a separate conditional remedy under ¶26. No payment receipt, satisfaction of judgment or consumer compensation payment was acquired.
¶28–30, PDF 6–7: the release is tied to the litigation and effective-date conduct. It does not release the excluded tax/criminal/later-conduct matters, and ¶29 expressly preserves claims of individuals whose images were processed. The city’s settlement is not a release of those individuals’ private claims.
The complete judgment names no independent registrar, registry, host, payment network, bank or authentication company as an actor ordered to terminate service. It directs Briver to disable and maintain its defined domains, provide information and prove compliance. File & ServeXpress appears in the clerk’s service certificate as the document-service mechanism, not as a shutdown target or provider compelled to enforce a content policy.
The announcement reports that, as of June 2, ten targeted websites were offline or no longer accessible in California, and that certain unnamed domain registrars and registries were willing to cooperate during the investigation. It attributes that combined result to the ongoing lawsuit and investigation. This is office-reported outcome evidence, not an independently tested ten-site availability audit, a judgment commanding ten providers, or proof of permanent worldwide disappearance. The signed judgment supplies a concrete coercive instrument for Briver; it does not disclose what each cooperating provider did or under which instruction.
The strongest defensible synthesis is therefore an enforceable company-specific settlement, recurring disclosure/attestation and inspection rights, and a separately reported wider shutdown/cooperation outcome. The missing discriminator is the actual attestation and domain evidence, disclosure response, payment/satisfaction record, or provider-specific instruction and response. No targeted service was visited, no external submission or outreach occurred, and no further acquisition branch was opened.
Root and worker visually reread retained judgment-page-03.png, paragraph 15. The operative phrase is “shall not transfer the registration”. The earlier paraphrase reversed that prohibition and generated a nonexistent transfer-recipient gap. Both are withdrawn and the table now states the non-transfer duty. The original judgment PDF/hash is unchanged; this corrects our interpretation. Pre-correction note and candidate bytes are preserved under sf-integration-wave-2026-09-09/r25-before-domain-correction. The five-year inactivity/reporting distinction and the permanent paragraph 14 prohibition are unchanged.