A federal judge has allowed Minnesota’s restrictions on AI “nudification” services to take effect, denying xAI’s request for a temporary restraining order while the company pursues a broader constitutional challenge to the law.
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank rejected the emergency request after concluding that xAI’s own delay weakened its claim that immediate court intervention was necessary. The company filed its motion on July 29, nearly three months after the measure was signed and only three days before its August 1 effective date.
“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate,” Frank wrote.
The order does not settle whether Minnesota’s law is constitutional. It permits the state to enforce the measure while xAI’s lawsuit proceeds, leaving the court to consider the company’s First Amendment and other objections at later stages of the case.
Minnesota’s statute targets websites and applications that provide technology for creating nonconsensual nude or sexualized depictions. Its approach is notable because it places responsibility directly on providers of the tools, rather than focusing exclusively on people who use AI systems to generate or distribute abusive images. Violations can carry penalties of as much as $500,000 each.
xAI argues in its complaint that the measure reaches beyond nonconsensual imagery and could cover protected images or videos, including material created with the depicted person’s permission or by that person. The company also objects to the statute’s definition of intimate body parts and says the law does not provide an adequate safe harbor for platforms that make good-faith efforts to prevent prohibited uses.
The lawsuit acknowledges Minnesota’s interest in combating nonconsensual AI-generated nudity but contends that the state could pursue that objective through narrower restrictions. Those arguments remain unresolved because the court’s initial decision centered on the requirements for emergency relief, particularly whether xAI had demonstrated an imminent and irreparable injury.
The dispute follows scrutiny of Grok, xAI’s chatbot and image-generation service on X, after users employed it to produce and circulate sexualized depictions of real people without their consent. The resulting backlash prompted investigations and restrictions, while xAI emphasized that its terms prohibit child sexual exploitation, nonconsensual nudity and unwanted sexual material. The company also introduced geographic controls intended to prevent certain image-editing functions from violating local laws.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has defended the legislation as a response to the personal and professional damage caused by AI-generated intimate imagery. Such material can be produced rapidly and shared widely, creating enforcement challenges even when laws already prohibit harassment, exploitation or the distribution of intimate images without consent.
The state law goes further than regulatory models centered on takedown duties or liability for individual perpetrators. The federal Take It Down Act addresses nonconsensual intimate imagery through criminal prohibitions and removal requirements for covered platforms, while Minnesota’s measure specifically confronts services designed to generate nudified content. Other states have also imposed forms of civil or criminal exposure connected to synthetic intimate imagery, but Minnesota’s direct focus on the technology provider makes the xAI case an important test of how far states may go in regulating generative tools.
xAI can continue seeking relief as the case develops, including a preliminary injunction after fuller briefing. For now, however, the August 1 enforcement date remains in place, and the court has not accepted the company’s argument that the law needed to be halted before its constitutional claims could be examined.
Sources: AI liability ruling