Minnesota has become the first U.S. state to explicitly ban nudification technology after a federal judge rejected xAI’s request to halt the law. The Elon Musk-owned company invoked the First Amendment, but the court noted that the delay in filing suggested the absence of immediate harm.
🔑 Key Takeaways
- A federal judge rejected xAI’s TRO request on July 31, 2026
- Minnesota’s law banning nudification apps takes effect August 1
- Civil penalties up to $500,000 per violation
- A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for August 19
The Court Ruling
Judge Donovan Frank, of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota, rejected on Friday, July 31, 2026, the motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by xAI. The Elon Musk-owned company was challenging the state law that prohibits nudification applications, tools that use artificial intelligence to transform photos of individuals into non-consensual pornographic images. In his two-page order, the magistrate notably pointed out the nearly three-month delay between the law’s signing and the company’s request.
« xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect. Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate. »
Judge Donovan Frank, U.S. District Court for Minnesota
This decision allows the regulation, adopted by Minnesota in May 2026 and signed by Governor Tim Walz after a near-unanimous bipartisan vote in the legislature, to take effect on Saturday, August 1. The case on the merits continues, however, and a hearing is scheduled for August 19 before the federal court in St. Paul to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be granted.
Law’s Scope and Penalties
The law prohibits any person owning or controlling a website, application, or software from allowing users to « nudify » images of third parties. It also prohibits promoting or advertising these capabilities. The law defines a « nudified » image as an image or video altered or generated to depict an intimate part that did not appear in the original of an identifiable person, and where the result is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe the intimate part belongs to that person.
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Primary prohibition | Technology enabling non-consensual nudification of individuals |
| Civil penalties | Up to $500,000 per access, download, or unlawful use |
| Damages | For psychological distress and punitive sanctions |
| Criminal penalties | None (civil law only) |
| Legal actions | Minnesota Attorney General and victims |
Political and Legal Reactions
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the decision « great news » and stated: « I am extremely proud to be defending this law, and along with it, the dignity of the people of Minnesota. These nudification applications, including Grok Imagine, have been used to produce child sexual abuse material and harass people in the vilest manner. This repulsive behavior is not welcome in Minnesota. »
Governor Tim Walz posted a message on X (formerly Twitter) directed at Elon Musk: « See you in court, creep. »
On the civil liberties side, the ACLU of Minnesota indicated that although it considers creating nudification technology to be protected speech under the First Amendment, the final version of the bill « does not find the right balance » between freedom of expression and victim protection.
« While we believe that creating the technology to alter or ‘nudify’ photos of identifiable people is protected by the First Amendment, we also recognize that the non-consensual creation and dissemination of such material can inflict damage on people appearing in those images. »
ACLU of Minnesota
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) also criticized the legislation. John Coleman, legislative counsel for AI and free speech at the foundation, explained: « Minnesota’s law is supposed to stop AI-generated nude images, but it’s written so broadly that it could end up covering benign political memes too, like President Trump in a bikini or former President Obama in hotpants. Americans have a First Amendment right to joke about, criticize, and parody public figures. A law that reaches that expression deserves to be struck down by the courts. »
The Origins of the Grok Controversy
The genesis of this law traces back to December 2025, when a version of the Grok model was released with the « Imagine » feature. This allowed users of the X platform (itself connected to xAI and SpaceX) to generate at scale sexualized images of real people, including minors, using simple natural language prompts. Faced with worldwide outrage, Apple threatened to remove the Grok app from its App Store if modifications were not made.
In January 2026, xAI revised its policies to prohibit the creation of nude or sexualized images without consent. Nevertheless, tests conducted through April 2026 by several specialized media outlets showed that Grok continued to produce non-consensual nude deepfakes, with users actively seeking to circumvent the implemented restrictions.
In its complaint, xAI explained that the Minnesota law « imposes an overbroad, content-based prohibition on speech and visual expression tools in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification’. » The company does not dispute the state’s interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images without consent, but asserts that the text « exceeds this objective, exposing a wide range of protected speech to civil and government sanctions. »
The complaint cites examples of images that would be prohibited under the new law, including a photo shared by President Donald Trump showing legislators shirtless floating in the Reflecting Pool in Washington. xAI maintains that creating images and videos through Grok Imagine is protected under the First Amendment and that the law provides no « safe harbor » for good-faith efforts by companies.
« Liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented or themselves created the image, and even if the image is never shared. It also attaches if the image has artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value, and even if the company has deployed near-perfect technical controls to prevent the generation of nude images. »
xAI Brief, U.S. District Court for Minnesota
Lawsuits and Platform Pressure
Additionally, SpaceX, xAI’s parent company, faces class action lawsuits from plaintiffs asserting that the Grok chatbot created or shared nude deepfakes depicting them, children or adults, and that xAI failed to report suspected offenders to authorities. In July 2026, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sent cease and desist letters to tech giants Apple and Google, requesting they remove nudification applications from their respective app stores.
Future Implications
With the law taking effect on Saturday, August 1, Minnesota becomes the first U.S. state to explicitly prohibit nudification technology. This major legislative milestone could inspire other states or the federal Congress to regulate generative artificial intelligence. The case remains pending and could serve as a major precedent in the debate between AI regulation and First Amendment-protected free speech.
The next hearing on August 19 will determine whether the court agrees to impose a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law’s enforcement during the merits review. If xAI obtains this injunction, the law would be suspended until the final decision. Otherwise, it will remain in effect throughout the proceedings, potentially exposing xAI and other companies in the sector to civil lawsuits.
Sources
This article is published for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice in any way. Do your own research (DYOR) before making any decisions.
