Judge Rejects xAI's Bid to Block Minnesota's First-in-Nation AI Nudification Ban

Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, has launched a federal legal challenge against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to block a landmark law prohibiting "nudification" technology. The lawsuit seeks to halt the enforcement of a statute that targets tools used to create non-consensual sexualized imagery, marking a high-stakes confrontation between state safety regulations and corporate free speech claims.

The law, known as HF 1606, took effect on August 1, 2026, and is the first of its kind in the United States to specifically ban the use of AI to digitally remove clothing from individuals. To deter the practice, the legislation utilizes civil penalties targeting the owners of websites or software that provide this technology. In response to the filing, Governor Tim Walz posted on social media, "See you in court, creep."

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied xAI's request for a temporary restraining order that would have paused the law's implementation. The judge cited the company's own delay in seeking relief, noting that the motion was filed only three days before the law took effect despite the legislation being signed months prior. "Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate," Judge Frank wrote in the ruling.

In court documents, xAI argues that the legislation is an unconstitutional overreach. The company claims the law "imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit 'nudification.'" By shifting enforcement "upstream" to the developers of the tools rather than just those who distribute the final images, Minnesota is attempting to create a systemic barrier to the creation of deepfake pornography.

This case represents a critical test for the AI industry regarding strict liability. If the law is upheld, it could set a precedent for other states to draft similar regulations that hold platforms accountable for user-generated content without the "safe harbor" protections typically granted to internet intermediaries. The outcome will likely determine whether AI tools are viewed as neutral instruments of expression or as inherently dangerous products subject to state-level prohibition.

While the request for an immediate stay was denied, the broader legal battle over the constitutionality of HF 1606 continues. The court will now determine if the law's penalties and restrictions violate the First Amendment or if the state's interest in preventing non-consensual sexual imagery outweighs the company's claims of free expression.