X Corp. Sues Minnesota Over Deepfake Election Law

Elon Musk's X Corp. filed a federal lawsuit April 23, 2025, challenging Minnesota's 2023 deepfake law as unconstitutionally vague and a threat to protected political speech. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court against Attorney General Keith Ellison, seeks to block enforcement of Minnesota Statutes § 609.771.

The Law at Issue

The statute criminalizes dissemination of AI-generated deepfakes within 90 days of an election when done with intent to injure a candidate's reputation or influence the election outcome. It defines a deepfake as media so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct the individual did not actually engage in, produced substantially through technical means.

Violations carry steep penalties: up to 90 days imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine for first offenses; up to five years and/or $10,000 for repeat offenses within five years. Enforcement can be pursued by the Attorney General, county or city attorneys, the depicted individual, or an injured candidate.

X Corp.'s Constitutional Challenge

X Corp. argues the law is "so vague and unintelligible that social media platforms cannot understand what the statute permits and what it prohibits, which will lead to blanket censorship" of protected political speech. The company contends its Community Notes feature provides an adequate alternative safeguard against deepfakes without criminal penalties.

The lawsuit mirrors X Corp.'s broader legal strategy against state-level AI regulations. The company filed a separate challenge against California's AB-2655 (Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024) in federal court in November 2024. A related California bill, AB-2839, was preliminarily enjoined by Judge John Mendez in October 2024.

Prior Challenges and Procedural Status

This is not the first challenge to Minnesota's law. Social media influencer Christopher Kohls and state Rep. Mary Franson previously sought to block the statute on First Amendment grounds. In January 2025, Judge Laura Provinzino denied their request for a preliminary injunction, ruling Kohls lacked standing (his content was labeled parody) and Franson delayed too long. That case remains on appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In December 2025, Judge Provinzino dismissed X Corp.'s Section 230 preemption claim for lack of Article III standing, though the company's First Amendment claims remain viable and stayed pending resolution of the Kohls appeal.

Broader Implications

The case underscores mounting tension between state efforts to protect election integrity from AI-driven misinformation and platforms' First Amendment rights. If upheld, the Minnesota law could set precedent for criminalizing the hosting of AI content on social media, potentially forcing platforms into aggressive content removal to avoid criminal liability.

The 8th Circuit's eventual ruling on the Kohls appeal, and the outcome of X Corp.'s parallel California litigation, will likely shape how states can regulate AI-generated political content without running afoul of constitutional free speech protections.