A Judge Kept Minnesota’s AI Nudification Ban in Force
Minnesota can keep enforcing the first US law aimed directly at AI nudification tools after a federal judge denied xAI’s request for a preliminary injunction. The ruling leaves penalties of up to $500,000 per violation in place, but it does not resolve the company’s constitutional challenge.
Minnesota may continue enforcing the first US state law that directly bars widely accessible artificial intelligence services from turning photographs of identifiable people into realistic intimate images. On September 4, federal judge Donovan Frank denied xAI’s request to pause the law while the company challenges it under the First Amendment.
The 30-second summary
- A federal judge refused to suspend Minnesota’s AI nudification law at the start of xAI’s constitutional lawsuit.
- The law can expose service owners to civil penalties of up to $500,000 for each violation.
- The order decides only whether enforcement should pause, not whether the law is ultimately constitutional.
The 14-page court order found that xAI had not shown the immediate, irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction. Frank also concluded that the balance of harms and the public interest favored Minnesota at this stage.
The practical result is simple: the ban stays active while the much harder constitutional question remains open.
What the law prohibits
The measure, signed on May 7 and effective since August 1, applies to owners or controllers of websites, applications, software and other services. They may not let a user “nudify” an image or perform the alteration for a user. Minnesota defines that as generating or altering an image so that a realistic intimate body part appears to belong to an identifiable person when it was absent from the original.
The state’s legislative summary says the attorney general may seek injunctions and civil penalties. The statute also contains an exemption when using the tool requires technical skill, a boundary likely to receive further scrutiny.
Why xAI challenged it
xAI argues that the law is too broad and restricts protected expression, including some consensual, artistic or satirical images. Minnesota responds that it regulates harmful technology and conduct, particularly the creation of nonconsensual sexual imagery and child sexual abuse material.
The court did not choose between those interpretations. Instead, it emphasized timing and evidence. xAI waited nearly three months after the law was signed before suing, and the judge considered its projected loss of Minnesota users speculative. The company has already applied location-specific controls to Grok Imagine in the state.
A live test of platform responsibility
The case asks whether lawmakers can place the compliance burden directly on the companies supplying image-generation tools. That differs from laws focused mainly on people who distribute abusive images after they are made. A related NewTqnia report describes how xAI itself sued a Grok user accused of bypassing safeguards, illustrating how responsibility may be divided between users and providers.
xAI filed notice that it intends to appeal the injunction decision. Minnesota also has a pending motion seeking dismissal of the underlying lawsuit.
Before we call this a final victory
The judge did not uphold the law after a full constitutional trial. He decided only that xAI had not met the demanding requirements for temporary relief. An appeals court could revisit that decision, and the district court still must consider the First Amendment claims on their merits.
Verified topics and entities
Sources and citations4 sources
External references used to support the reporting in this article.
Published by
NewTqnia Technology Policy Desk
An institutional editorial team within NewTqnia
