Minnesota defends AI nudification ban after lawsuit from xAI

Minnesota is drawing a line in the sand on AI-generated nonconsensual intimate imagery, and Elon Musk’s xAI is the first major company to push back. Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a court response on August 17 defending the state’s new law banning so-called “nudification” technology, just weeks after xAI sued to block it.

The law, known as HF 1606, took effect on August 1. It prohibits operators of websites, apps, and software from allowing users to create or share AI-generated images or videos that depict identifiable individuals in a sexualized manner without their consent. Violations carry penalties of up to $500,000 each.

The lawsuit and the stakes

xAI filed its lawsuit on July 27-28 in the US District Court for Minnesota, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The company’s core argument is a familiar one in tech-versus-government disputes: the First Amendment. xAI contends the statute is overbroad, imposing restrictions that sweep up protected forms of visual expression alongside genuinely harmful content.

xAI requested a temporary restraining order, asking a judge to pause the law while the case played out. US District Judge Donovan Frank denied that request on July 31, pointing to the fact that xAI had waited until just days before the law’s effective date to seek relief.

With the restraining order denied, the law went into effect on schedule. A hearing on xAI’s preliminary injunction motion is set for August 19.

Ellison’s filing frames the law as a carefully constructed response to a specific and growing problem. His office describes HF 1606 as narrowly tailored to address image-based sexual abuse, not a broad crackdown on AI creativity or speech.

Why nudification laws are emerging now

Governor Tim Walz signed HF 1606 with the stated goal of protecting dignity and preventing abuse. Victim advocacy groups have rallied behind the measure, calling it a necessary legal protection in an era when technology has outpaced existing law.

Some free-speech organizations have raised concerns about the law’s scope, arguing that its language could be interpreted to cover legitimate artistic, satirical, or journalistic uses of AI-generated imagery. The overbreadth question is likely to be central when Judge Frank hears the preliminary injunction arguments.

What this means for AI regulation

For xAI specifically, the stakes extend beyond Minnesota. Musk’s AI company operates nationally, and a patchwork of state laws with different standards and penalties would create a compliance challenge. There’s a strategic logic to challenging the first mover: if xAI can establish that laws like HF 1606 are unconstitutional, it preempts dozens of similar battles down the road.

The August 19 hearing will be the next major inflection point. Judge Frank’s ruling on the preliminary injunction won’t resolve the case, but it will offer the clearest signal yet about how federal courts view the constitutionality of AI nudification bans.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.