Cloth Off AI

I want to be straight about what this review is. ClothOff is not an AI girlfriend app and it is not really an image generator in the sense the rest of my ranking uses the phrase. It is a clothes-removal tool: you upload a photo of a person, it returns a fake nude of that person. The entire product is designed around a use case that is now a crime in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and a growing list of other places, and the company behind it has been sued by a teenager, sued by the City of San Francisco, banned from processing Italian users’ data, thrown out of both app stores, and investigated by the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Bellingcat and 60 Minutes. The 3.8 on this page scores the software, not the ethics, and even on that basis I’d argue for lower.

So why review it at all? Because a quarter of a million people a month arrive at clothoff.net from Google, and a lot of them will search “clothoff review” and find a page full of affiliate links telling them it’s a “pocket porn studio”. Somebody should tell them who they are paying, what the Terms of Service actually say, and what happens to people who use it on their classmates. This rewrite does that. I read the current site, the February 2025 Terms, the privacy and refund pages, the full 45-page federal complaint filed against ClothOff in New Jersey in October 2025, the Italian regulator’s order, and every piece of investigative reporting I could find. I also pulled the Ahrefs data, which tells a story nobody else covering this app seems to have noticed.

What I did not do is upload anyone’s photo. This review evaluates ClothOff as a business and as a piece of software, not as a how-to.

TL;DR verdict

ClothOff is a fast, cheap, well-engineered tool for doing something you should not do, sold by an anonymous British Virgin Islands company that disguises its card payments as flower-shop purchases and has been publicly linked to Belarus and Russia. The only lawful ways to use it are on your own photos or on AI-generated fictional people, and if that’s what you want, there are prompt-based generators that do it better with no consent problem built into the workflow.

If you’re going to ignore that and use it anyway, at least do it with your eyes open: no refund once a coin is spent, no age verification protecting you from being on a platform full of minors, no honest answer about whether your uploads are stored, and a Terms of Service that forbids you from downloading the images you paid for. The Cloth Off AI link is there because every review on this site has one, not because I’m suggesting you click it.

The numbers nobody else will show you

Every review I publish now includes the Ahrefs data for the domain, and ClothOff’s is genuinely surprising.

• Domain Rating 41, with 1,480 referring domains but only 309 of them followed. That is a weak, spammy link profile: lots of referral-link drops on forums and affiliate blogs, very little editorial linking.
• Roughly 255,000 Ahrefs-estimated organic search visits in August 2026, up from about 12,500 in August 2025. That is a 1,934% year-on-year increase, and August 2026 is the all-time high.
• 2,623 ranking keywords, 832 of them in the top 3. Unlike PromptChan, whose traffic is almost entirely people typing the brand name, ClothOff ranks for generic searches like “undress ai”, “deepnude” and “clothes remover”. The footer of the site is a wall of exactly those keywords. This is SEO-driven acquisition of people who don’t know the brand yet.
• Top countries: US about 37,800, Spain about 29,900, India about 28,100 a month. Spain being the second-largest market for the app that produced the Almendralejo images is the kind of detail that makes you put the laptop down for a minute.

The trend line is odd. The .net domain was doing about 20,000 a month in September 2024, then dropped to almost nothing in October and November 2024. Independent reporting says ClothOff’s former main .io domain went offline in December 2024, so this looks like a domain shuffle in the middle of the Bellingcat and Guardian coverage. By January 2025 the .net was back at 89,000. Then in October 2025, the same month the New Jersey lawsuit was filed and the Italian regulator issued its order, traffic step-changed up to 130,000 and has climbed every quarter since. Litigation was, in traffic terms, a marketing event.

For scale: the site’s own figures, quoted in the Der Spiegel whistleblower story and repeated in the federal complaint, claim 27 million visitors in the first half of 2024 and 200,000 images generated per day. Those include direct, Telegram and paid traffic, which Ahrefs doesn’t see. The organic number I’m quoting is the floor, not the ceiling.

Who this is for

I’m supposed to write this section for every app, so here is the honest version. There is one lawful, defensible customer for a tool like this: someone who wants to generate explicit versions of images where every person depicted is either themselves, an adult who has explicitly consented in a way they can prove, or not a real person at all. That’s the whole list.

For that person, ClothOff’s actual strengths are real. Third-party testers consistently report 15-20 seconds per image, the pose “remix” library is enormous (the homepage counters show individual poses with 100,000 to 225,000 uses each), the coin model means no subscription to forget, and the Terms say crypto is accepted so you don’t have to hand a card to an anonymous BVI company.

But even that person has better options. A prompt-based generator creates a fictional body from scratch instead of overpainting a real one, which removes the consent problem from the workflow entirely rather than asking you to police it yourself. My Create Porn AI and Seduced AI reviews cover two of those.

Who should skip this

Everyone else, and I mean that in the plain legal sense rather than as a moral flourish.

Skip it if you were planning to use it on a photo of anyone who hasn’t consented. In the US, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed on May 19, 2025 and makes knowingly publishing non-consensual intimate images, explicitly including AI-generated ones that are indistinguishable from real, a federal crime. New Jersey criminalised deepfake production in April 2025. In the UK, sharing an intimate deepfake has been an offence since the Online Safety Act amended the Sexual Offences Act, and creating one became a crime on February 6, 2026. In Spain, fifteen teenagers in Almendralejo were sentenced in June 2024 to a year of supervised probation for twenty counts of child pornography and twenty counts of offences against moral integrity over images made with this tool. EU Directive 2024/1385 requires every member state to criminalise non-consensual sexual deepfakes. If the subject is under 18 it is child sexual abuse material everywhere on earth, regardless of what any app’s pop-up says.

Skip it if you care who has your card details or your face. The company will not tell you who it is, has listed at least four different shell entities in its footer since 2023, and routes payments through merchants pretending to sell other things.

Skip it if you want a refund, ever. And skip it if you wanted an AI companion, a chat, a voice, or a character that remembers you. There is none of that here. It is an upload box.

What Reddit actually says

I went through 12 Reddit threads and about 190 comments that named ClothOff, from early 2024 through July 2026. Almost none of them are from people describing a purchase. That is the finding, and it is worse than a pile of angry refund posts would have been.

The threads with real discussion are news. r/technology’s October 2025 post on the New Jersey teen lawsuit has 335 comments. The top one, at roughly 2,500 upvotes, quotes the developer’s line that “processing images of minors is impossible” and answers: “There is no way that’s even remotely true.” Directly under it, at a thousand-plus: “Well you see, we asked users to check a box if they’re of age, and make them pinky promise that they’re only uploading their own images.” A third: “There’s absolutely no use for this technology that isn’t scummy.” Another, at 645 upvotes: “That girl who’s suing is probably one of thousands of young girls this is happening to.” r/newjersey the same week is local and blunter. “From a photo when she was 14. Any adult that has it is in possession of child porn.” A woman who was in sixth grade in the AOL era wrote that a classmate once claimed he had software that could “see through clothes in pictures”, her teacher said that was impossible, and “It’s crazy to me that some people have been dreaming of this since they first used a computer and you can basically do that now.”

The July 2025 r/technology thread on Der Spiegel’s whistleblower story is the same register: Denmark’s likeness-copyright law, a note that California already has something like it and “I don’t think it’s made much of a difference”, and the usual “you can run the models at home” fatalism. One commenter added, correctly, “Not in the headline, but Telegram is the other defendant.” In r/italy in October 2025, after the Garante blocked the app, the useful comment is operational, not moral: “Ma chi aveva i soldi caricati sul portale? E adesso si trova bloccato?” Anyone who had coins sitting on the Italian side of the paywall is stuck. Another: “la gente davvero si fida a usare ste robe?” Do people actually trust this enough to upload? The answer, based on everything else I read, is yes, and they should not.

The user posts are small and ugly. A February 2024 r/confessions thread is someone describing fake Facebook accounts “where I find my like fucking teachers profiles” and “i’ve used like fucking clothoff.io to do things i wont even like to say”. The replies told him to get therapy. In August 2025, under the Spiegel thread, someone wrote that their cousin, “we are both minors”, “Used clothoff to make a nude photo of my old schools batch” on their device, then emailed the company scared of juvenile court. I am not going to pretend those are edge cases. They are the product working as marketed. Using this on a real person who has not consented is illegal in the US under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, in the UK under the Online Safety Act, and in a growing list of other places. Using it on anyone under 18 is child sexual abuse material everywhere. There is no “how to” in this review because there is no legitimate how-to.

Genuine quality talk is almost absent. The one first-person test that isn’t a crime is a commenter on the lawsuit thread who tried a picture of their wife, with her approval, and said “while it did take the clothes off, it really didn’t look like her at all. In the end it just looked like someone photoshopped her head on another person’s body.” That matches what third-party testers say: fast, crude, a face pasted on a guessed body. I found zero threads about coin prices, refunds, or billing descriptors. On a normal app that would mean billing is clean. Here it means nobody who paid wants their username next to the receipt.

Sentiment among genuine commenters is not mixed. It is hostile, with a thin layer of “you can’t stop open-source” fatalism and a thinner layer of people admitting they used it. I did not find a single comment of the form “I bought coins and the output was worth it.” What I did find, in volume, is advertising dressed as recommendations. That gets its own section.

The “best undress AI” threads are ads

Der Spiegel said Reddit was one of ClothOff’s three planned acquisition channels, alongside Telegram and 4chan, with ads aimed at men aged 16 to 35. You do not have to take the whistleblower’s word for it. In July 2026, r/JrTrip hosted “Best Undress AI Recommended by Everyone?”, a listicle that name-checks ClothOff as “user-friendly with good pose and body customization, plus it has a usable free tier”. The thread has 2,346 comments. The replies that aren’t outbound links to LeakHub.fun and three “Companion” landing pages are “Wow”, “Good”, “i hope this is best”. The accounts that dunk on ClothOff for faces drifting are the same posts pitching a rival. I am treating that as astroturf, not as a review of the model.

The older r/TelegramBots thread from September 2023, someone scared the bot would leak a picture they generated “because of my curiosity”, is the actual customer forum: two referral links, one “it gets leaked all the time, usually after 2 months”, and a card-payment question nobody answered. r/findolucky’s 2025 “ClothOff alternatives” posts are the same pattern with tracking codes. Even r/law, under the Guardian investigation in March 2024, had “And how much did ClothOff pay to have this ‘article’ published?” The company has trained people to treat every mention as an ad, including the reporting that named them.

The people behind it, as far as anyone can tell

This is the section the affiliate reviews skip, so I’ll spend the words.

ClothOff launched in early 2023. Within months it was the tool used in two cases that made international news: dozens of AI nudes of schoolgirls in Almendralejo, Spain, circulated in WhatsApp groups in September 2023, and a near-identical incident at Westfield High School in New Jersey the same autumn. Spanish prosecutors said at the time they suspected the developers were “somewhere in eastern Europe” but couldn’t identify them.

In February 2024 Bellingcat and the Guardian published parallel investigations. The Guardian’s six-month “Black Box” podcast investigation found that the people running the app had digitally distorted their voices for media interviews and, in one case, “used AI to generate an entirely fake person who they claimed was their CEO.” Payments traced to a London-registered company called Texture Oasis that claimed to sell architectural design products. Both ClothOff and a Russian video-game key marketplace called GGSel had briefly listed the same London address, GG Technology Ltd, registered to a Ukrainian national. Screenshots showed a Telegram account in the name of Dasha Babicheva, a Minsk resident in her mid-twenties, conducting ClothOff business including bank applications; social media identified Alaiksandr Babichau, 30, as her brother, and a ClothOff recruiting email pointed to a website that was a clone of one he owned. Babichau told the Guardian he had no connection to the app and no sister called Dasha, then the associated Telegram account blocked the reporter. Bellingcat, meanwhile, documented ClothOff “dealers” selling coins through G2A disguised as downloadable game content.

In December 2024, 60 Minutes went to the Buenos Aires address the site listed for “Grupo Digital” and found a YouTube politics channel whose staff had never heard of ClothOff. PayPal told the programme it had banned ClothOff a year earlier and kept shutting down the redirect merchants, which kept reappearing.

In June 2025, Der Spiegel published a whistleblower account with internal documents: an annual budget of around 3 million euros, more than 30 staff all working from former Soviet countries, a network of roughly ten acquired nudify apps, all internal documents in Russian, and a 150,000-euro-per-country ad budget for Germany, Spain, France and the UK.

On October 3, 2025 the Italian data-protection authority issued an emergency order against AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd, BVI, suspending its processing of Italian users’ data for having no consent verification, no age checks, and an AI watermark (“Fake”) so transparent it was “barely visible”. On October 16, 2025 a Yale Law School clinic filed a federal suit in New Jersey on behalf of a girl who was 14 in the source photos, naming the BVI company and the Babichau siblings as defendants and Telegram as a nominal defendant. As of January 2026, TechCrunch reported the plaintiffs were still trying to serve the defendants through the Hague Convention.

Today the footer says “BESTDAILY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, BVI”. Bellingcat noted in February 2025 that this was at least the fourth company name to appear there since 2023. I have no idea whether any of those companies own anything. Neither does anyone else outside the operation. That is the point.

First-session walkthrough

Loading clothoff.net today, the first thing you get is a modal headed “Clothoff Rules”: you must be 18, you can’t use others’ photos without permission or anyone under 18, you are “solely responsible” for the images, and by clicking Accept you confirm you will only process photos of yourself or people who “explicitly provided you with the consent”. There is no date-of-birth field, no ID check, no third-party age verification. The federal complaint describes this accurately: users are “not required to check a box, provide a date of birth, or complete any other affirmative step.” The company has published a blog post, cited in the complaint, titled “Age Verification Laws: A Scam We’re Not Buying.”

Behind the modal, the page is a long dark scroller. A carousel of “Adult Industry Stars Choose Us” leads with a Russian performer’s biography. A feature strip lists the PRO perks: one-time payments, videos, costume undressing, VIP coins, sex-pose sets, queue skip, multi-upload, face swap. Then the remix grid: dozens of named poses with usage counters (one is at 225,800). Then “Get APP” buttons that are add-to-home-screen instructions, because the app was removed from both stores. Then the footer: the “We do not save any data” line, “Processing of minors is impossible”, the BVI company name, affiliate and “Become Dealer” links, an API page, and keyword links (“Undress AI”, “DeepNude AI”, “Nudify AI”).

The /pricing, /premium and /plans URLs all serve the homepage. The FAQ page opens by describing ClothOff as “your go-to platform for removing backgrounds from photos”, a copy-paste artefact nobody fixed.

Chat experience and memory

There is none. No chat window, no character, no persona, no memory. You upload, you pick a mode, you wait about fifteen seconds, you get an image. The Terms say nothing is retained between sessions. The site advertises a gallery. Pick which one you believe.

Generation quality

I did not upload anyone’s photo, so this is synthesised from third-party testers, from the complaint’s description of the product, and from the one Reddit user who tried it on a consenting adult. The consensus: fast (15-20 seconds), realistic on well-lit frontal photos with simple clothing, artefact-prone on loose garments, hands and complex poses, with the default mode returning a blurred result on the free token. The r/technology commenter who ran it on a picture of their wife, with her approval, said it “didn’t look like her at all” and looked like a head photoshopped onto another body. That is the honest quality report: a guessed nude with a face pasted on. The remix library applies preset sex poses to the undressed body, and the counters on the homepage suggest that library, not the plain undress, is where the volume is. The face-swap and trait-adjustment tools exist and cost more coins (eight per trait change, reportedly).

Two things worth knowing that no affiliate review mentions. First, Italy’s regulator found the “Fake” watermark so faint it was “barely visible, making it easily removable”, which means the output is designed to pass as real. Second, section 1(e) of the Terms prohibits “downloading, sharing, or distributing any images generated using this Service” and says generated content “may only be accessed and used within the platform”. You are paying for images you are contractually forbidden to save. Whether that clause is a liability shield or a joke, it is in the document you agree to.

Voice and video

No voice of any kind. Video means the “remix” clips: a short looping animation applied to an undressed still, sold as a PRO feature. Der Spiegel reported the video function had been used over a million times by mid-2025. Nothing here resembles the video features in Candy AI or the companion apps.

Customization depth

Body-trait sliders on the uploaded photo (reported at eight coins per generation), a costume set, the sex-pose library, face swap. No saved characters, no prompt box, no personality. It is a photo filter with a menu.

NSFW behavior and limits

Everything the site produces is explicit; that’s the product. The stated limits are: no minors (“Processing of minors is impossible”, which the site has said since 2024 and which a federal court is now being asked to evaluate), no celebrities according to section 7 of the Terms, and no “sexual abuse, incest, bestiality, rape” content under section 4. Section 8 says, in an odd phrasing, that the service is “not intended for use by children’s photos under the age of 20 by default”. I can’t test any of these filters without uploading real people’s images, which I won’t do. The complaint alleges the API accepts an input for how old the subject should appear. Make of that what you will.

The practical point: every safeguard here is a promise from an anonymous company that has already been found by an EU regulator to have no consent verification. If you’re weighing Cloth Off AI against a generator that never touches a real photo, the generator wins on every axis that matters.

Mobile experience

There is no app in any store. TechCrunch confirmed in January 2026 that ClothOff has been removed from both Apple’s and Google’s stores and banned from most social platforms. The homepage “Get APP” buttons walk you through adding the site to your home screen as a web app, which is what the complaint describes too. The Telegram bot is the other mobile route: the footer still links one, Telegram told the Wall Street Journal in October 2025 that it had removed ClothOff’s bot, and the complaint says one bot had over 600,000 subscribers. New bots appear, get reported, and are replaced. My earlier review described native Android and iOS apps with push notifications. That was wrong and I’ve corrected it.

Pricing analysis

I couldn’t see a single price without creating an account and I wasn’t willing to give this company a card. So here is what is reported, with sources.

Reported consumption: one coin per standard undress, eight per trait-adjusted generation, more for video and remix sets. If the $15-for-roughly-400-coins figure is right, a plain image costs under four cents, which is why the volume counters on the homepage are in the hundreds of thousands. Section 11 of the Terms adds that bank and processor fees are on you, payment is “100% advance”, and prices “may be subject to changes”. Coins have no stated expiry, which is genuinely better than Candy’s use-it-or-lose-it tokens.

The free-coin economy is the more interesting part. The complaint quotes ClothOff’s own blog offering 200 free coins (about $15 worth) for posting a TikTok advertising the service, plus 25 coins and 50% revenue share for referrals. A coupon site lists 24 coins for reposting on X and 10 for rating generations. That’s how you get 1,480 referring domains at DR 41, and it’s how you end up with a user base recruited by people who were paid in nudes.

Value vs alternatives

The honest comparison is between ClothOff and not using a nudify tool at all. If you want explicit images and you’re comfortable with AI-generated people, a prompt-based generator produces a fictional body rather than editing a real one: see my Create Porn AI review and my Seduced AI review. Neither is a great product, both are legally boring in a way ClothOff can never be.

Within the nudify category, Undress.app is the traffic leader at about 877,000 Ahrefs-estimated organic visits in August 2026 against ClothOff’s 255,000, and I’ve covered it in my Undress AI review. PornWorks, which the New Jersey complaint alleges is part of the same ClothOff-affiliated network of around ten services, is in my PornWorks AI review.

Refund and cancellation reality

There is nothing to cancel because there is no subscription. Refunds are the whole question, and the answer is written in two places that mostly agree. The Refund and Cancellation Policy page: refunds only for purchases made directly on clothoff.net, only within 14 days of purchase, only for “unused Coins that remain on the user’s balance”, only with “a valid reason”, by emailing support with your full name, order number and purchase date; approved refunds processed within 14 working days; “any attempts to abuse our refund policy may result in the suspension or termination of your account”. Section 12 of the Terms adds a clause the policy page doesn’t: the refund “may not be provided in full and will be reduced proportionally, subject to Your use of the Services”.

Translation: if you spent one coin, you are asking an anonymous BVI company for a discretionary partial refund, by email, with your full legal name attached to a ClothOff order. Section 22 says disputes go to the courts of the British Virgin Islands. Your realistic recourse is a chargeback, which will land on a merchant descriptor for something other than ClothOff, so keep your receipt email. Italy is the extra trap: after the Garante blocked the app in October 2025, an r/italy commenter asked what happens to people who “aveva i soldi caricati sul portale” and now finds the service frozen. There is no public answer. Coins sitting behind a regulator’s stop order are not a refund.

Account deletion is by written email to support@clothoff.net. The footer says so; no timeline is given.

Safety, privacy and billing discretion

The privacy policy is ten short paragraphs. It names no data controller, no jurisdiction, no retention period and no processors. It says the company collects your email, uses cookies, sends payments to unnamed “third-party payment processors” it takes no responsibility for, shares data with unnamed “partners”, and “cannot guarantee the security of your information”. The Terms are more expansive and make a specific technical claim: all uploads are “processed locally within the user’s web browser cache”, “never saved or retained on our servers”, and deleted when the session ends. I write software for a living. A diffusion model that produces this output does not run in your browser cache. The image goes to their GPUs. The federal complaint alleges ClothOff “saves or stores” generated images and points to the “customizable gallery” the site itself advertises. My previous review repeated the no-storage claim as a “strong stated privacy policy” and listed it as a pro. I’ve moved it to the cons.

On the plus side, and I want to be fair: section 6 of the Terms now states in capitals that user input and output are not used to retrain models without explicit consent, and claims the training data was synthetic. That is a better clause than several mainstream companion apps have. It’s also a claim from a company whose other claims a court and a regulator are actively contesting.

Billing discretion is where ClothOff is unusual, and not in a good way. Most adult apps use a neutral descriptor from a licensed high-risk processor. ClothOff, per Bellingcat, the Guardian and 60 Minutes, has used merchants pretending to be an architectural-products firm, a game-key marketplace, flower shops and photography lessons, because PayPal and the mainstream processors banned it. That’s not discretion, that’s the merchant committing processor fraud with your transaction. The Terms list crypto as a payment method. If you are going to pay this company anything, that is the only route that doesn’t put your card in the hands of a shell you can’t name.

Schedule 1 of the Terms lists countries the service “may be suspended” for. It includes Belarus and Russia, where the operators are alleged to be, and, in a line I had to read twice, “the USA (California, New Jersey)”: the two jurisdictions that have sued them. Italy, whose regulator has ordered them to stop, isn’t on the list.

Common complaints and patterns

Ranked by weight of evidence rather than Reddit volume, because the Reddit volume is mostly news plus ads: the app being used on minors (two court cases, one regulator, multiple school incidents, and the August 2025 comment from a minor whose cousin had just done it to a school batch); total anonymity of the operator and the rotating footer companies; disguised payment processing and PayPal bans; no age verification and a public refusal to add any; the “no storage” claim versus the gallery feature; the barely-visible watermark; refund terms that exclude anyone who used the product, plus Italian users who had coins loaded when the Garante froze the site; Reddit and Telegram astroturfing documented in the company’s own internal marketing plans and still running as 2,300-comment “best undress AI” threads in 2026. User-level complaints, where they exist: a consenting-spouse test that “didn’t look like her at all”, blurred free output, and the perennial “will it leak?”.

Final verdict

ClothOff is the most consequential app in my ranking and the one I’d least want anyone I know to use. It works, it’s cheap, it’s fast, and its growth curve (12,500 to 255,000 monthly organic visits in a year) says demand for it is enormous. It is also built by people who hide behind four shell companies and an AI-generated CEO, sold through fake merchants, stripped from both app stores, and currently defending, or rather not defending, a federal lawsuit brought by a girl who was fourteen in the photos. Using it on anyone who hasn’t consented is a crime in the US, the UK and Spain and will be across the EU. Using it on yourself is legal and pointless when prompt-based generators exist.

Score breakdown: Speed and output, genuinely good for what it is. Legitimacy, as low as it gets: anonymous BVI operator, disguised payments, no age verification. Privacy, a no-storage claim I don’t believe and a court doesn’t either. Billing and refunds, one-time coins with no expiry, but refunds only for unused coins within 14 days at their discretion under BVI law. Legal exposure for the user, the highest of any app I’ve reviewed.

The 3.8 stands as a rating of the machinery. As a rating of the company, I’d put it lower. If you came here looking for permission, you don’t have it. If you came looking for the link, it’s here: Cloth Off AI. Use it on nobody but yourself.

More screenshots from our testing

Loverr.ai is supported by affiliate commissions. I only link to apps I've actually paid for and used. How I make money →