xAI’s legal fight against a Minnesota law banning sexual deepfakes will drag on for a while, even though it suffered a second setback last week.
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank initially denied a motion from xAI filed at the end of July that would have stopped Minnesota from enforcing the ban, effectively nullifying the law. With the law in effect, Frank has now denied a second motion, making it abundantly clear that injunctions based on xAI’s claims that it is being irreparably harmed by this law are not going to be sufficient—but that the case apparently has enough merit to continue.
The law itself bans nudification apps by penalizing service providers—apps and online platforms. It levies fines of up to $500,000 every time a deepfake is accessed, which could add up to devastating legal costs in the event of a viral image or video. It should also be noted that the specifics of the nudity standard in the Minnesota law are broader than, say, what can’t be shown on broadcast TV, and includes the “primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.”
The xAI suit claims that the law is an unconstitutional curb on free speech, not just harmful to xAI. It claims that violations will occur without intent to do harm. Since the definition of nudity is so broad, xAI claims that AI generations of shirtless men, harmless AI generations in swimwear, and satirical images, count as deepfakes. For example, it claims that an AI-generated image it provides of Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as sumo wrestlers could be considered a violation.
In his September 4 decision, Frank wrote “because xAI has not demonstrated irreparable harm and the balance of harms tips steeply in favor of the State, xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.” But the text of the decision suggests a long road ahead for the broader legal effort:
The constitutional issues raised by the parties are complex, particularly when considered in the context of this new technology and the risks that it poses to the public. These issues deserve, and will receive, full consideration. To be sure, a determination of xAI’s constitutional claims will be made in the near future because the State has filed a motion to dismiss that places these issues front and center. In the future, the Court may also consider whether xAI is entitled to permanent injunctive relief on the merits.
During the Grok deepfake wave of this past December and January, notable Musk-friendly account @cb_doge defended Grok, saying criticism was “like blaming a pen for writing something bad.” Musk personally replied to that post saying “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”
And indeed, xAI, also known as SpaceXAI, has taken dramatic action to punish at least one user. In July, xAI sued an individual in South Carolina who had been arrested for alleged sexual abuse of minors. The suit alleges that this person’s “actions were a calculated scheme to weaponize Plaintiff’s tool for criminal ends, exposing real victims to profound and lasting harm, while exposing Plaintiff to significant legal risk and reputational damage.”
The suit also makes the claim that xAI has been quietly acting as a sort of anti-child exploitation vigilante, spotting and punishing violations, and reporting the alleged violators to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). It claims to have “suspended 52,222 accounts and made 73,604 reports to NCMEC in 2026, resulting in (at least) 244 arrests.”
