A federal judge has denied a request from Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, to block a new Minnesota law aimed at curbing nudification technology. The law, signed by Governor Tim Walz earlier this year, prohibits the creation and advertising of software capable of generating non-consensual sexualized imagery of real individuals. While the law is set to take effect this Saturday, xAI argued in court that the measure violates First Amendment protections.
Judge Donovan Frank rejected the motion for an immediate pause, noting that the company waited nearly three months after the law was signed before seeking an emergency injunction. The judge stated that the delay suggests no immediate harm is occurring that would require an emergency intervention. A further hearing to consider a preliminary injunction is scheduled for August 19.
xAI maintains that the legislation is too broad and argues that it captures legitimate forms of expression, including political satire and parody. The company pointed to examples such as AI-generated memes of political figures as content that could potentially trigger liability under the new rules. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison pushed back against the lawsuit, describing the company’s claim of an emergency as a manufactured issue.
The debate over the scope of the law has attracted attention from various groups. While the ACLU of Minnesota initially supported the concept of regulating non-consensual deepfakes, the organization now argues that the final version of the bill does not strike the right balance between protecting individuals and upholding free speech rights. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions continue to grapple with similar regulatory challenges, including recent efforts in San Francisco to have major app stores remove similar nudification software.
Violations of the Minnesota law can lead to significant civil penalties, reaching up to $500,000 per instance, along with damages for mental anguish. The legislation allows both the state attorney general and private victims to pursue legal action against platforms that enable this content. The court will continue to examine the constitutional arguments when the case reconvenes next month.