xAI Lawsuit Challenges Minnesota's $500,000-Per-Image Nudification Law as Judge Denies Restraining Order

Elon Musk's xAI is trying to sue its way out of a Grok reckoning

Elon Musk's xAI is trying to sue its way out of a Grok reckoning as arrests of Grok users accused of making child sex abuse materials (CSAM) have triggered lawsuits from kids to sue xAI to force changes to the tool to block harmful outputs. Earlier this month, xAI started suing users who are allegedly circumventing its safeguards to generate AI CSAM, seemingly hopeful that an early court win will guarantee it's not liable for supposedly user-generated content. For its next move, the Grok maker pointed to that lawsuit in a complaint filed Monday, accusing Minnesota of trying to force changes to Grok and Grok Imagine by enforcing a ban on nudification technology that would guarantee that xAI was liable for the harmful outputs, as well as outputs that allegedly weren't sexualizing people without consent. According to xAI, suing a Grok user is proof that xAI is already doing everything in its power to punish bad actors, and therefore, Grok deserves safe harbor from Minnesota's ban. Minnesota's law -- which is due to take effect August 1 -- threatens firms like xAI with fines of up to $500,000 for every single harmful output discovered in the state. As xAI explained, that adds up quickly, considering that some Grok users are accused of making thousands of images of single victims. Most recently, xAI was sued last week after tipping off cops to a well-known Arkansas child photographer who allegedly used Grok to sexualize images he took of hundreds of clients. In a complaint from a 10-year-old Jane Doe, it's alleged the photographer made hundreds of images of Doe, and thousands of images and videos of others kids. Doe's lawyer told Ars that many of those kids are preparing to file their own lawsuits, and those claims could end up being added to a potential class action filed in March by young girls in Tennessee. Doing the math, xAI seemingly panicked, arguing that fining AI tool makers for each output is excessive, particularly since Minnesota's law has no distribution requirement and potentially fines xAI for images that only the user saw: "A company whose users request just ten images in violation of the statute would face exposure up to $5 million in civil penalties alone. A company with a thousand violative images could be fined up to $500 million. And a business whose users created a hundred thousand images covered by [the law] (not at all unlikely for a publicly available program with millions of users generating billions of images) could owe an eye-popping $50 billion dollars." Additionally, the law gives victims a right to sue xAI over any individual output, which increases xAI's financial risks. The penalties are so severe, xAI said in its lawsuit that it was finally preparing to update Grok to block harmful outputs after more than six months of backlash and probes pressuring the firm to tighten its safeguards. "Confronted with $500,000-per-image strict liability and no safe harbor, xAI has no practical choice but to restrict Grok Imagine's image-editing features in various ways when the statute takes effect on August 1, 2026," xAI argued. "Protected speech freely available before the law takes effect will thus be chilled." However, xAI would prefer to leave Grok unchanged and continue relying on its terms of use stipulating that users could be banned for using Grok to make CSAM or other kinds of non-consensual intimate images (NCII), its complaint said. "But for [the law] and its penalties, xAI would continue to offer the editing feature exactly as it does today," xAI said. Nudification law is unconstitutional, xAI says To defend Grok, Musk's firm is turning to the First Amendment, arguing that Minnesota's law is a "clumsy attempt to prohibit 'nudification'" that "sweeps in a wide range of fully protected speech." That includes nude images generated with "artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value," xAI argued. Most egregiously, "liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented -- or created the image themselves -- and even if the image is never shared," xAI emphasized in its complaint. Minnesota has less restrictive means to block harms from nudification, xAI argued, while claiming that the Take It Down Act already protected users from harms of distribution. If the court agrees, Minnesota could be enjoined from enforcing the law against any nudification app. Without such an injunction, "providers may well have no choice but to alter their services in Minnesota rather than run the risk that users will evade their controls," xAI argued. "And that would hamper all uses of AI image-generation tools, including those that [the law] does not purport to regulate." But Minnesota thinks that it has the right to block images at the source before they can be distributed and cause lifelong harms to kids. Asked for comment, the office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison provided a statement to Ars, confirming that Minnesota will likely defend the law to prevent abhorrent outputs that lawsuits claim are traumatizing victims and their families nationwide. "We're waiting to be served and will review the lawsuit and response in Court," Ellison said. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level." xAI did not respond to Ars' request to comment. Thighs, male breasts aren't "intimate," xAI says xAI's arguments mostly focus on how Minnesota defines "intimate parts." Musk's firm prefers definitions found in anti-revenge porn laws like the Take It Down Act, which xAI said relied on a narrower definition to criminalize distribution of both real and AI-generated "intimate visual depictions." Under the Take It Down Act, harmful images are those exposing "the genitals, pubic area, anus, or partially or fully exposed nipple of an individual," and that supposedly ensures that benign images aren't targeted under the law. Less narrowly tailored, xAI argued, is Minnesota's legal definition of "intimate parts," which was pulled from a criminal statute that prohibits the "nonconsensual touching" of the "inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a man or woman, as well as the groin and primary genital area." The law makes sense for nonconsensual touching but not for nonconsensual image generation, xAI argued. It "accordingly bans ordinary depictions of men without shirts, people in shorts or swimsuits, and other body parts routinely displayed in public -- far beyond what an ordinary person would consider 'nudification,'" xAI argued. In its complaint, xAI seems to tiptoe around mentions of bikinis, after much of the Grok backlash following an X post Musk made that advertised Grok's ability to put anyone in a bikini. Instead, xAI focuses on protecting Grok users' rights to generate images as a form of expression, like by mocking politicians by reimagining them in Speedos or as Sumo wrestlers, both of which would feature outputs with exposed thighs and male breasts. The closest xAI came to acknowledging that women and girls were targeted by its scandal was citing an output that Donald Trump generated, showing him with his political allies shirtless in a pool with what xAI suggested was an AI-generated woman in a bikini. Examples of Grok nudity as "political humor." Examples of Grok nudity as "political humor." xAI's complaint similarly seems to avoid much discussion of the arrests of Grok users, which Doe's lawyer suggested to Ars is happening at an increasing pace, as xAI seems to be partnering more closely with law enforcement in some cases. Although xAI was criticized for failing to help cops ID one Grok user who was eventually arrested, xAI said in its lawsuit that it's motivated to catch bad actors, and, out of 70,000 reports of suspected Grok-generated CSAM, at least 244 cases led to arrests. On top of arguing that Grok users alone are liable for harmful outputs and that Grok deserves an exemption from nudification app bans for supposedly implementing state-of-the-art or "near-perfect" detection of harmful outputs, xAI argued that Grok's process for creating any images or videos is entitled to First Amendment protections. That echoes other chatbot makers who have argued essentially that chatbot speech deserves the same protections as human speech. Whether xAI's arguments will prevail will likely depend on whether the court agrees that Minnesota's law is not narrowly tailored enough to survive constitutional scrutiny. xAI argued that it can't survive any level of scrutiny. "Although Minnesota likely has a compelling interest in preventing individuals from creating nudes of other people without consent and distributing that content, the statute punishes AI platforms for assisting in the creation of a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to that limited goal," xAI argued.

Judge refuses xAI's request to stop a Minnesota law banning 'nudify' apps - Engadget

The new Minnesota law that would ban apps and websites that can generate nonconsensual intimate imagery can take effect today, after xAI's last-minute effort to stop it from being enforced failed to convince a federal judge. According to NBC News, US District Judge Donovan Frank has refused to grant xAI's request to stop the new law from being enforced on August 1 in a complaint arguing that it violates the First Amendment. Based on the judge's order, he wasn't persuaded by xAI's actions that the law's enforcement would cause immediate harm. He noted that xAI filed the lawsuit on July 29, 2026, almost three months after the law was signed and merely three days before it was set to take effect. "Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate," the judge wrote. While Judge Frank didn't side with xAI this time around, the lawsuit will still push through. The court will hold a hearing for the case on August 19 to decide whether to grant xAI's request to put a preliminary injunction on the Minnesota law, which is the first of its kind in the country. In addition to banning apps and websites that can generate adult AI deepfakes in the state, the law would also fine developers $500,000 every time a user generates a nonconsensual intimate image using their products. Under the law, a "nudified" image or video is something that has been "altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual." It will apply to instances wherein an altered image or video is "so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual." However, xAI argued in its lawsuit that the law was an "overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit 'nudification.'" The company denied that it was contesting Minnesota's efforts to prevent the spread of artificially generated nude images of real people. However, it said the law "extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanction." Grok gained infamy earlier this year for complying with people's requests to transform photos of real women and children into sexualized images. It implemented policy changes to address the situation by mid-January, but NBC News says Grok has still been undressing real people as recently as April.

Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over its first-in-the-nation law banning 'nudification' technology

Elon Musk's company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state's first-in-the-nation law that bans "nudification" technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Musk's company sued Monday in federal court, days before the law is set to take effect Saturday and make Minnesota the first state to try to outlaw the increasingly proliferating technology that lets people use AI to to create fake nude images of real people. The law was signed in May. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI -- whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere -- said it does not contest the state's interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal," banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. The lawsuit argues there is no "safe harbor" provision for companies that make good faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. It also says the law's definition of "intimate part" is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. In a statement, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office had not been served with the lawsuit yet or seen it. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," Ellison said. State laws over election deepfakes have had mixed results in courts. California's law was blocked over First Amendment speech protections. Minnesota's law has thus far survived a 2025 court challenge by Musk's company. The law is distinct from state and federal laws that outlaw deepfakes, AI-generated sexually explicit images of people without their consent. Those laws typically penalize the people who use the tools to make these images, not the makers of the tools themselves. The federal Take it Down Act, passed last year, also requires websites and apps to implement a process to remove those images. In the lawsuit, xAI said the terms of service for using Grok prohibit using it for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities" that violate someone's privacy, including altering their image to nudify them or depict them in a sexually explicit image. It said it enforces those rules against violators through account suspensions or terminations, and by reporting suspected child sexual abuse content. XAI also said earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content." After a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, Grok said in January it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place, preventing people from editing photos of real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal. Grok's "spicy mode" had allowed users to create explicit content, leading to a backlash from governments worldwide. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," xAI said in a January statement. ___ Follow Marc Levy at http://twitter.com/timelywriter.

Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over law to ban 'nudify' apps

Elon Musk's xAI, now owned by SpaceX, sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to challenge a law that would ban so-called nudify apps in the state. In their complaint, filed in a federal court in Minnesota on Monday, attorneys for xAI wrote that the statute "imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit 'nudification.'" The Minnesota law, which goes into effect on Saturday, targets apps and websites that give people the ability to generate non-consensual sexualized imagery, levying $500,000 fines each time a user creates explicit deepfakes. The law, passed in April, was spearheaded by Minnesota state Sen. Erin Maye Quade after she learned about a man who created sexualized images and videos of of over 80 women he knew using their social media photos without their consent. Maye Quade told CNBC in September that the proposed bill was similar to older laws prohibiting the act of peeping into windows to capture explicit photos. SpaceXAI, as the artificial intelligence business is now known, is facing a proposed class action lawsuit from plaintiffs who allege that the company's Grok AI chatbot and image generator was used to create and share child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) depicting them as minors based on real photos or videos. The suit also alleges that xAI failed to share information with authorities about alleged perpetrators who used Grok to "nudify" their images. Musk's company argues that it "strictly prohibits" users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent. The company noted in its complaint that it's filed suit against users who "evade its extensive technological blockers to generate such images in violation." It's filed a similar suit to challenge a California law intended to thwart AI-generated, or "deepfake" content in the state.

Minnesota's Nudification Ban Is Now in Effect Despite xAI's Efforts to Stop It

A remarkable new law went into effect in Minnesota on Saturday that bans nudification apps, AI-based or not. It penalizes the app provider by enabling lawsuits from victims, and levying fairly harsh fines of up to $500,000 not just per generation, but every time someone accesses the image, meaning a viral image could be financially catastrophic. Just before it went into effect, District Court Judge Donovan Frank denied a last minute legal request from xAI, sometimes known as SpaceXAI, the AI division of the Elon Musk-led conglomerate, and the originator of the Grok AI chatbot. XAI's request for a temporary restraining order would have effectively blocked enforcement of the law. The law defines "nudification" as altering a photo of a recognizable person to expose "intimate parts," which -- with apologies for being a bit graphic -- can include more than just the classic broadcast TV standard of genitals, buttocks, and female nipples. The "intimate parts definition comes from a separate state statute defining those parts as the "primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being." To count as nudification, image alteration has to be basically at-the-push-of-a-button, and can't involve artistry or skill. So the pervy Photoshoppers of Minnesota are safe from this law (but this is not legal advice, and don't come crying to Gizmodo if you run afoul of Minnesota's revenge porn laws). SpaceXAI's suit against the Minnesota Attorney General takes issue with the breadth of the law, which, it argues, is expansive enough to include many AI image generations created in ostensibly innocent fun. In particular it cites AI generated images of Trump Administration officials in bathing suits. Another image included in the suit (in full color) features former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and current Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker squaring off against one another while dressed only in what are apparently supposed to be sumo mawashi. At least part of Judge Frank's legal reasoning was timing. "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," he wrote, adding, "Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate." The Grok AI chatbot, which at the time was the flagship XAI product, became a nasty meme right around the most recent holiday season by non-consensually generating sexualized and/or scantily-clad images of people. According to one estimate, Grok created 23,000 such images of children. In a statement posted to X, which is the SpaceX-owned social media outpost of the Grok chatbot, X said the capabilities that enabled this behavior had been curtailed. The statement also provided assurance that X's operators "continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content."

xAI sues Minnesota over the first US 'nudify' ban

Days before Minnesota's first-of-its-kind ban on "nudification" tools takes effect, Elon Musk's xAI has sued to kill it, arguing the First Amendment protects the tools that digitally undress people. The company is making that case while facing a class action over Grok-generated child sexual abuse material and investigations on three continents. xAI has a novel argument for why it should get to keep building tools that digitally undress people. The First Amendment. Elon Musk's AI company, now owned by SpaceX, sued Minnesota's attorney general on Monday, CBS News first reported. It wants a federal court to strike down the first US law banning "nudification" technology. The law takes effect on Saturday. The law Minnesota's HF 1606 bars any site or app from letting users "nudify" a real, identifiable person. That means generating a realistic fake showing intimate parts they never exposed. It also bans advertising such tools. Each violation can draw a civil penalty of up to $500,000. The money funds services for victims of sexual assault and abuse. State Senator Erin Maye Quade drove the bill, after a man used social-media photos to make sexual images of more than 80 women he knew. xAI's case xAI calls the statute "an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression." It says it does not contest Minnesota's interest in stopping nonconsensual nude images. It argues the law sweeps up protected speech along with them. The penalties, it warns, are ruinous. A service whose users made 100,000 banned images could face "an eye-popping $50 billion," it told the court. xAI says it would have to strip back Grok Imagine's editing features once the law lands, chilling speech that is legal today. It also claims the law is so broad it could reach images of shirtless men or people in swimsuits. That reading is contestable. The statute exempts tools that require real "technical skill" from the user, and it leaves federal Section 230 protections intact. An awkward plaintiff xAI makes this free-speech case while under fire for the very harm the law targets. It faces a proposed class action alleging people used Grok to make child sexual abuse material from real photos. Regulators in California, the UK, the EU and Ireland have all opened investigations. The company says it "strictly prohibits" nonconsensual sexual images, and has even sued its own users for evading its blockers. This is the same tool a UK MP says generated sexualised images of her. It also sits upstream of the nudify apps Europe is trying to ban. There is a bigger fight behind this one. The Trump administration has said it will challenge state AI laws and wants a single national framework instead. Minnesota is becoming a test case for how far one state can regulate AI on its own. Its ban on prediction markets was also just blocked. The state is not backing down. "There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy," attorney general Keith Ellison said. "This is not one of them." Governor Tim Walz was blunter: "See you in court, creep."

Grok Creator SpaceXAI Sues Minnesota AG to Stop Ban on Nudification

"xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent. But [...]" So reads an excerpt from the first paragraph of a new lawsuit from xAI, LLC, the SpaceX AI division recently rebranded as SpaceXAI. (It appears the company's LLC and primary website url haven't been updated to match the SpaceXAI rebrand. They should kick it into high gear because I'm very sick of writing all this stuff out). As you probably recall, over this past holiday break, a capability of xAI's Grok chatbot went viral, and users created countless nonconsensual sexual images of real people, including many of underage people. One estimate using extrapolation placed the number of sexualized images of children created by Grok at 23,000. A statement on X later said Grok's capabilities were changed to prevent this. "We remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content," the statement said in part. But now Minnesota has a new law on its books that bans nudification apps and websites -- any tech that takes images of clothed people and automatically makes them nude, generally with AI. The law, HF 1606, bans the act of using the software, and penalizes the companies themselves -- allowing the state to levy fines, and opening the door to lawsuits from victims. It "prohibits the access, download, or use of nudification technology, except when the website, app, or software requires the substantial application of technological or artistic skill by a human creator directing and controlling the output," according to CBS News. It theoretically goes into effect next month. But the suit from xAI characterizes the law as so excessively broad that it curbs valid uses of AI. It also says the law fails to take into account intent. And it imposes "massive civil penalties," despite its alleged deficiencies. Large swaths of the lawsuit are dedicated to contesting the law's criteria for nudity. It alleges that Minnesota disregarded an apparent common sense definition of "intimate" body parts, and instead used a definition pulled from a law against certain kinds of physical touch. Thus, the law, the suit argues, bans software from generating images of female or male breasts, and any depiction of anyone's "inner thigh." The lawsuit includes some examples of what it argues would be considered banned nudification in Minnesota under the law if it went into effect. One is what it calls a "viral snapshot" attached to a social media post by President Trump. It features Trump, along with "Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgam [...] shirtless in the Washington Mall's reflecting pool, along with an unknown (possibly fictitious) woman." Note that you can, I'm sorry to say, see AI-generated male breasts, as well as part of Trump's AI-generated inner thigh. According to the suit, the new law's penalty structure creates a situation in which outputting ten images as theoretically harmless as the Trump reflecting pool slop pic could result in $5 million in penalties for the company queried in order to generate them. "And a business whose users created a hundred thousand images covered by HF 1606 (not at all unlikely for a publicly available program with millions of users generating billions of images) could owe an eye-popping $50 billion dollars," the suit claims. And then there's this part: "Liability also attaches even if the image has artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value, and (again) even if the company has deployed near-perfect, state-of-the-art technical controls to prevent the generation of nude images." The suit asks the judge to declare HF 1606 unconstitutional, and stop it from being enforced. In response to a different lawsuit, a Minnesota ban on prediction markets that also would have gone into effect next month was prevented from entering force via a judge's ruling handed down yesterday. Governor Tim Walz, who signed the bill into law, tweeted the following about the suit:

Elon Musk's xAI Sues Minnesota Days Before State Ban on AI Nudification Apps

xAI, Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company that's behind Grok, has sued Minnesota just days before the state's landmark bill banning nudification apps comes into effect. Minnesota passed the first-in-the-nation law in April, becoming the first state to ban the creation of AI-generated non-consensual intimate images. It is scheduled to become law on August 1. xAI filed a lawsuit on Monday in a federal court against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, saying that the law is overly broad and expands to body parts that are routinely shown in public. The 38-page lawsuit says that xAI does not challenge the state's aims of banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. However, it argues that Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal" by prohibiting a wide range of constitutionally protected images and videos while exposing the company to fines of up to $500,000 for each violation. The complaint says that the statute doesn't have a "safe harbor" for AI companies that have rules in place prohibiting users from making such images. It also argues that AI companies face liability even if a person makes an image of themselves, or of someone from whom they have consent. The Associated Press reported yesterday that Minnesota AG Ellison hasn't been served with the lawsuit yet. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy," Ellison says. "This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level." At the end of last year, xAI announced that Grok had the power to edit any image on the platform, including with its "spicy" mode. This led to an avalanche of unwanted content as women found their faces were being used in explicit images. According to The Verge, over 11 days across the New Year, there were three million such images created, with 23,000 of those depicting children. xAI says its terms of service prohibit anyone from using Grok for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities", including using a person's image to nudify them. The company added earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content." Image creditsHeader photo licensed via Depositphotos.

Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over law banning 'nudification' technology

First-in-the-nation law sets up test on states' power to regulate use of AI as it tries to outlaw fake nude images of real people Elon Musk's company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state's first-in-the-nation law banning "nudification" technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Musk's company sued on Monday in federal court, days before the law is set to take effect on Saturday and make Minnesota the first state to try to outlaw the increasingly proliferating technology that lets people use AI to to create fake nude images of real people. The law was signed in May. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI - whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere - said it does not contest the state's interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal", banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 for each violation. The lawsuit argues there is no "safe harbor" provision for companies that make good-faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. It also says the law's definition of "intimate part" is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. In a statement, Keith Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general, said his office had not been served with the lawsuit yet or seen it. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal and professional level," Ellison said. State laws over election deepfakes have had mixed results in courts. California's law was blocked over first amendment speech protections. Minnesota's law has thus far survived a 2025 court challenge by Musk's company. The law is distinct from state and federal laws that outlaw deepfakes and AI-generated sexually explicit images of people without their consent. Those laws typically penalize the people who use the tools to make these images, not the makers of the tools themselves. The federal Take it Down Act, passed last year, also requires websites and apps to implement a process to remove those images. Texas last year took on nudification in a slightly different way. It made a website or app owner liable to civil damages from a person depicted in a nudified image - and potentially criminal penalties - if the website or app owner knew the person hadn't given consent to its creation or fails to take it down promptly when told about it. In the lawsuit, xAI said the terms of service for using Grok prohibit using it for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities" that violate someone's privacy, including altering their image to nudify them or depict them in a sexually explicit image. It said it enforces those rules against violators through account suspensions or terminations, and by reporting suspected child sexual abuse content. xAI also said earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content". After a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, Grok said in January it will geo-block content if it violates laws in a particular place, preventing people from editing photos of real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal. Grok's "spicy mode" had allowed users to create explicit content, leading to a backlash from governments worldwide. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," xAI said in a January statement.

xAI sues Minnesota over law banning AI 'nudification' tech | Fortune

Elon Musk's company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state's first-in-the-nation law that bans "nudification" technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Musk's company sued Monday in federal court, days before the law is set to take effect Saturday and make Minnesota the first state to try to outlaw the increasingly proliferating technology that lets people use AI to to create fake nude images of real people. The law was signed in May. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI -- whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere -- said it does not contest the state's interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal," banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. The lawsuit argues there is no "safe harbor" provision for companies that make good-faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. It also says the law's definition of "intimate part" is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. In a statement, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office had not been served with the lawsuit yet or seen it. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," Ellison said. State laws over election deepfakes have had mixed results in courts. California's law was blocked over First Amendment speech protections. Minnesota's law has thus far survived a 2025 court challenge by Musk's company. The law is distinct from state and federal laws that outlaw deepfakes, AI-generated sexually explicit images of people without their consent. Those laws typically penalize the people who use the tools to make these images, not the makers of the tools themselves. The federal Take it Down Act, passed last year, also requires websites and apps to implement a process to remove those images. Texas last year took on nudification in a slightly different way. It made a website or app owner liable to civil damages from a person depicted in a nudified image -- and potentially criminal penalties -- if the website or app owner knew the person hadn't given consent to its creation or fails to take it down promptly when told about it. In the lawsuit, xAI said the terms of service for using Grok prohibit using it for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities" that violate someone's privacy, including altering their image to nudify them or depict them in a sexually explicit image. It said it enforces those rules against violators through account suspensions or terminations, and by reporting suspected child sexual abuse content. XAI also said earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content." After a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, Grok said in January it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place, preventing people from editing photos of real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal. Grok's "spicy mode" had allowed users to create explicit content, leading to a backlash from governments worldwide. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," xAI said in a January statement.

Elon Musk's xAI Sues Minnesota to Kill the US's First AI Nudification Law

xAI, Elon Musk's AI company, filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to block the country's first law targeting AI "nudification" -- software that uses artificial intelligence to digitally remove or alter clothing in real photos of real people -- calling it "an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit nudification." The law is HF 1606. It makes any platform strictly liable -- legally responsible regardless of knowledge or intent -- if users generate realistic images of real people showing body parts those people never exposed. Each violation can cost up to $500,000, per image generated. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, isn't defending nudification exactly. "xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent," the filing states. "But the statute Minnesota enacted extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions." The problem, xAI alleges, is how Minnesota defined the term. Per the lawsuit, the state borrowed "intimate part" from a criminal sexual contact statute -- one written for nonconsensual touching, not image generation. Under it, the inner thigh, buttocks, or breast all qualify equally. Generating a realistic AI image of a shirtless politician, a woman in a swimsuit, or a public figure at the beach -- even for political satire -- could trigger the law and the fine. And there's no escape for platforms, per xAI's arguments. "There is no safe harbor for good-faith efforts of the provider of general-purpose AI creative tools to avoid harms," the complaint reads. "Liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented -- or created the image themselves -- and even if the image is never shared." There's also no scienter (knowledge of wrongdoing) requirement -- a user sneaking past a company's own filters still makes the company fully liable under this law. In 2026 alone the company suspended more than 50,000 accounts and filed more than 70,000 reports to NCMEC (the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children), leading to at least 244 arrests. None of that creates a defense under HF 1606. The broader context matters here. Grok's image tools ran into trouble almost immediately after their late July 2025 launch, generating deepfakes -- AI-generated synthetic images of real people -- with simple text prompts, prompting regulatory probes across Europe, Australia, and multiple US states. Cities like Baltimore and three Tennessee minors separately sued xAI over Grok's deepfake outputs. The company also challenged Colorado's AI law in April on similar First Amendment grounds. Minnesota passed HF 1606 132-1 in the House and 65-0 in the Senate, after a man used social media photos to generate sexual images of more than 80 women he knew. The bill's champion in the Senate, Senator Erin Maye Quade, confirmed the law's prohibition on consensual images was "intentional." The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act -- signed by President Donald Trump in May 2025 -- already covers nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, but requires proof of nonconsent and actual distribution, uses a narrower body-part definition, and includes carve-outs for education and medical content. xAI argues that's the model Minnesota should have adopted. AG Ellison isn't backing down. "AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," he said after the lawsuit was filed. HF 1606 takes effect Saturday. xAI wants a federal judge to stop it before then.

Minnesota's first-of-its-kind ban on AI "nudification" tech now in effect, but not without obstacles

Esme Murphy, a reporter and Sunday morning anchor for WCCO-TV, has been a member of the WCCO-TV staff since December 1990. She is also a weekend talk show host on WCCO Radio. Born and raised in New York City, Esme ventured into reporting after graduating from Harvard University. Minnesota's ban on AI "nudification" became law Saturday and Elon Musk isn't happy about it. He is suing the State of Minnesota, claiming the law violates free speech laws. Minnesota passed a first-of-its-kind ban on AI nudification, a process of taking someone's real picture and using AI to put it on a pornographic or sexual image. On Friday, a federal judge denied Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI, from banning the Minnesota law from going into effect. Musk argues the law violates constitutional free speech laws, but Judge Donovan Frank allowed the law to go into effect, saying Musk had waited too long to file his motion. While the law is in effect, this issue is not over. The judge has set a preliminary injunction hearing for Aug. 19. "I think being the first in the country to do something is always a big deal; I am really proud of Minnesota for being the first here," said Sen. Erin Maye Quade, who authored the bill. Quade says other states have reached out to her because they want to pass similar laws. She says the ongoing legal battle over the Minnesota law is being monitored around the country. "We took great care to make sure that this law doesn't touch the First Amendment and respects art and only targets the specific image that we wanted to target, which is nudified images that they are not legal," Quade said. Attorney General Keith Ellison, who is defending the state law, says the measure does not inhibit free speech, but merely puts guardrails in place on a tool that has the potential to hurt individual Minnesotans. Musk's company had also objected to the stiff penalty Minnesota is imposing. With the new law in effect, any violation could impose a potential $500,000 fine per offense on platform operators. You can watch WCCO Sunday Morning with Esme Murphy and Adam Del Rosso every Sunday at 6 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.

Judge denies request by Elon Musk's xAI to pause Minnesota nudification ban

A federal judge on Friday denied a request from Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI to block a Minnesota law that will be the first in the nation to ban nudification technology. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled that there was little risk of immediate harm from the law going into effect as scheduled on Saturday, despite a lawsuit this week from xAI claiming that the law violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. "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," the judge wrote in a two-page order, denying xAI's request for a pause to the law. The court could still pause the law at a later time. The judge wrote that he'll hold a hearing on Aug. 19 on whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The law, which was signed by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz in May, prohibits a person who owns or controls a website, application or software to allow their users to "nudify" images of others. It also prohibits anyone from advertising nudification capabilities. In its lawsuit filed Monday, Musk's company did not dispute Minnesota's interest in banning nudification websites and apps, but said: "The law is overinclusive and there are far less restrictive alternatives that function to achieve the same ends." Grok, one of xAI's products, has faced severe scrutiny for its 'Imagine' feature that uses AI to generate and edit images and videos of users. After the release of a December model, Grok began producing sexualized deepfakes of people with less clothing at the request of users on a massive scale, prompting worldwide outcry and investigations in several jurisdictions. In January, Apple threatened to remove Grok from its app store unless it made changes. As recently as April, Grok was continuing to generate sexualized images of people without their consent, as users tried to break through restrictions that xAI put in place in January. Minnesota's law defines a "nudified" image or video as something that has been "altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual." The law applies only when "the altered or generated image or video is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual."In response to the lawsuit, Walz said "See you in court, creep" in an X post Tuesday. Violating Minnesota's law could result in a civil penalty of up to $500,000 "for each unlawful access, download or use," in addition to civil penalties for mental anguish, punitive damages, attorney's fees, or "other relief the court deems just and equitable." The law says the state's attorney general may enforce it and that victims may sue on their own. The law does not include criminal penalties. Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota, filed a response to xAI's lawsuit on Friday, arguing for the court to deny xAI's temporary restraining order, convert it into a preliminary injunction motion, and proceed from there. Ellison argued that xAI waited too long -- three months after the law was passed -- to file an emergency delay, and that their "voluntary delay should not create a manufactured emergency for the Attorney General or the Court." xAI's criticism of the law is drawing support from some free speech advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which supported passage of the law in an earlier form in February but has since turned against it. "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," the ACLU of Minnesota said in a statement Friday. "In engaging with lawmakers on this issue, we hoped to strike an appropriate balance between First Amendment rights and the ability of people harmed to seek remedial measures, not unlike the remedies available to people harmed by defamation. The final version of the bill does not strike that balance," the organization said. xAI argued that it already prohibits users "from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent." SpaceX, xAI's parent company, faces class action lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim Grok's AI chatbot created or shared nude deepfakes of them as children or as adults. The lawsuits also say that xAI failed to alert authorities to the alleged perpetrators who used the tool to create their nude deepfakes. Minnesota's law came among wider efforts to regulate AI platforms that can generate deepfakes. In July, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sent Apple and Google cease and desist letters demanding they remove nudification apps from their app stores. xAI's lawsuit argued that creating images and videos using Grok Imagine is a protected First Amendment activity, and that Minnesota's law did not provide a "safe harbor for good-faith efforts," for companies to avoid nudification efforts. "Liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented -- or created the image themselves -- and even if the image is never shared," xAI's lawsuit said. "Liability also attaches even if the image has artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value, and (again) even if the company has deployed near-perfect, state-of the-art technical controls to prevent the generation of nude images." The lawsuit included several examples of screenshots that it said would be banned under Minnesota's law including one image shared by President Donald Trump showing him and other lawmakers floating shirtless in the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, said it agreed that the state law is overly broad. "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," John Coleman, legislative council for AI and free expression at the foundation, said in a statement. "That goes far beyond prohibiting unlawful content like child sexual abuse material, which is already illegal. Instead, it sweeps in ordinary political speech and satire that Americans create and share online every day." "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," Coleman said.

How to watch: Lawmakers, advocates discuss Minnesota's ban on AI "nudification" technology

Aki Nace has been a web producer for CBS Minnesota since 2019. She covers breaking news and makes short-form documentary films. Minnesota Sen. Erin Maye Quade on Wednesday morning will discuss the state's ban on AI "nudification" technology that goes into effect on Saturday. The law, which is the first of its kind in the country, bans technology that creates fake, non-consensual sexualized images and videos of people. The bill passed unanimously in the state Senate and was supported by all but one lawmaker in the House. Maye Quade, a Democrat who authored the bill in the Senate, will be joined by several advocates at the press conference. How to watch: * What: Maye Quade discusses Minnesota's ban on AI "nudification" technology. * When: Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. * How to watch: You can watch in the player above or on YouTube. On Tuesday, Elon Musk's AI company sued the state over the law, claiming it violates the First Amendment. While xAI says it "does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent," the law "extends far beyond that goal" and exposes a "wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions," the civil complaint says. Attorney General Keith Ellison said he'll review the lawsuit and response in court. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling," he said about the lawsuit. "There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level." This story will be updated.

Elon Musk's XAI Sues Minnesota Over Its First-In-The-Nation Law Banning 'Nudification' Technology

Elon Musk's company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state's first-in-the-nation law that bans "nudification" technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Musk's company sued Monday in federal court, days before the law is set to take effect Saturday and make Minnesota the first state to try to outlaw the increasingly proliferating technology that lets people use AI to to create fake nude images of real people. The law was signed in May. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI -- whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere -- said it does not contest the state's interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal," banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. The lawsuit argues there is no "safe harbor" provision for companies that make good faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. It also says the law's definition of "intimate part" is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. In a statement, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office had not been served with the lawsuit yet or seen it. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," Ellison said. State laws over election deepfakes have had mixed results in courts. California's law was blocked over First Amendment speech protections. Minnesota's law has thus far survived a 2025 court challenge by Musk's company. The law is distinct from state and federal laws that outlaw deepfakes, AI-generated sexually explicit images of people without their consent. Those laws typically penalize the people who use the tools to make these images, not the makers of the tools themselves. The federal Take it Down Act, passed last year, also requires websites and apps to implement a process to remove those images. In the lawsuit, xAI said the terms of service for using Grok prohibit using it for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities" that violate someone's privacy, including altering their image to nudify them or depict them in a sexually explicit image. It said it enforces those rules against violators through account suspensions or terminations, and by reporting suspected child sexual abuse content. XAI also said earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content." After a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, Grok said in January it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place, preventing people from editing photos of real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal. Grok's "spicy mode" had allowed users to create explicit content, leading to a backlash from governments worldwide. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," xAI said in a January statement. ___ Follow Marc Levy at http://twitter.com/timelywriter.

Elon Musk's xAI sues to stop Minnesota law banning nudification technology

Riley Moser is a digital producer who covers breaking news and feature stories for CBS Minnesota. Riley started her career at CBS Minnesota in June 2022 and earned an honorable mention for sports writing from the Iowa College Media Association the same year. Billionaire Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company is suing Minnesota over a first-of-its-kind law that bans apps and websites that create fake, sexualized pictures of individuals, claiming it violates the First Amendment. The bill prohibiting access to what's known as "nudification" technology was signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz earlier this year and is set to take effect in August. The law, known as HF 1606, also creates a pathway for victims and the state attorney general's office to go after companies that are behind this kind of AI. The lawsuit filed Monday in federal court on behalf of xAI against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison argues that the statute "imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression." While xAI says it "does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent," the law "extends far beyond that goal" and exposes a "wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions," the civil complaint says. Musk's company argues the law makes the AI provider strictly liable regardless of whether it prohibits users from using the tool for nudification and how many mitigations the provider has in place to prevent such use. It also argues that the company is held liable if the persons depicted consented to the creation of the image, or if the image has "artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value." The lawsuit also claims that the law's definition of "intimate part" is broad and bans depictions of men without shirts, people in shorts or swimsuits and other depictions "far beyond what an ordinary person would consider 'nudification.'" xAI argues that creating images and videos using its platform is protected First Amendment activity, and that Minnesota's anti-nudification law burdens xAI and its users' right to freedom of expression. "We're waiting to be served and will review the lawsuit and response in Court. But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling," Ellison said about the lawsuit. "There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level." Musk's AI company is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an order preventing Minnesota from enforcing the law. In response to the lawsuit, Walz tweeted, "See you in court, creep." The Trump administration last year announced it would challenge AI laws made at the state level, and earlier this year announced a "comprehensive national legislative framework" for regulating the technology. The White House said "a patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead the global AI race."

Elon Musk Company Sues Minnesota Over Law Banning Use Of AI To Create Nude Deepfakes

"Using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said. Billionaire CEO Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company has filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, alleging that its new law banning the use of AI tech to create nonconsensual deepfake videos or images of people naked violates the First Amendment. X.AI argued in the lawsuit that the Minnesota law "imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit 'nudification.'" The company also added that it already "strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent." "Although Minnesota likely has a compelling interest in preventing individuals from creating nudes of other people without consent and distributing that content, the statute punishes AI platforms for assisting in the creation of a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to that limited goal," the company argued. The law, which goes into effect on Saturday, allows victims to sue the owners of nudification apps for damages. It would also empower the state attorney general to collect fines of $500,000 per violation. "Using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and could cause them immense harm on many levels," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said in a statement in response to the lawsuit. "I'll see X in court." In a separate social media post on Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) shared his thoughts about the lawsuit:

xAI Loses Bid to Block Minnesota's First-in-the-Nation AI Deepfake Ban

A federal judge has declined to temporarily block Minnesota's new AI deepfake law targeting tools that can create realistic, nonconsensual nude images, allowing the first-of-its-kind restriction to take effect while xAI's broader legal challenge moves forward. The judge left open the possibility of revisiting the issue later, scheduling an Aug. 19 hearing to consider xAI's request for a preliminary injunction. xAI filed its lawsuit Monday, arguing the Minnesota law violates First Amendment protections and places unconstitutional limits on AI-generated content. The law, signed in May by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, targets websites, applications and software platforms that allow users to create realistic "nudified" images of real people without consent. It also prohibits advertising tools that enable such content. The statute defines a nudified image as one that has been digitally altered or generated to depict an intimate body part that was not present in the original image and appears realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe it belongs to the identifiable individual. Violations carry significant financial penalties. The law allows civil penalties of up to $500,000 per unlawful access, download or use, along with additional damages and legal fees. Enforcement authority rests with the Minnesota attorney general, and private individuals can also bring lawsuits. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison urged the court to reject xAI's emergency request, arguing the company's decision to wait until the last minute created a crisis of its own making. "xAI's voluntary delay should not create a manufactured emergency for the Attorney General or the Court," Ellison wrote in a court filing. xAI argued the law is overly broad and restricts protected speech. In its complaint, the company said, "The law is overinclusive and there are far less restrictive alternatives that function to achieve the same ends." The company also said it already prohibits users from generating nonconsensual nude or sexualized images of people. The lawsuit comes as xAI's Grok chatbot faces scrutiny over its image-generation capabilities. Grok's "Imagine" feature, which can create and edit images and video, has drawn criticism after reports that users were able to generate sexualized deepfakes at scale following a December model release. Apple later threatened to remove the app unless changes were made. Free speech advocates have offered mixed reactions to Minnesota's approach. The ACLU of Minnesota said it supports protecting First Amendment rights around emerging technologies but argued the final version of the law went too far. "The final version of the bill does not strike that balance," the group said. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) also criticized the law, arguing that its broad language could sweep in protected parody and political expression. FIRE legislative counsel John Coleman said the measure could potentially cover "benign political memes," including altered images of public figures, and argued that such restrictions would face serious constitutional challenges. "Americans have a First Amendment right to joke about, criticize, and parody public figures," Coleman said. "A law that reaches that expression deserves to be struck down by the courts." Walz has defended the measure publicly, responding to the lawsuit with a post on X: "See you in court, creep." Grok Faces Scrutiny xAI has been under fire in the past for allegedly allowing users to generate deepfake images of minors. In March, three Tennessee teenagers filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging its AI chatbot, Grok, generated sexualized images of them without their consent. In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI, urging state authorities to investigate its chatbot Grok over the creation and spread of nonconsensual AI-generated sexual images involving children. In a post on X, Newsom accused the company of enabling predators to exploit AI technology. "xAI's decision to create and host a breeding ground for predators to spread nonconsensual sexually explicit AI deepfakes, including images that digitally undress children, is vile," Newsom wrote. This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

xAI sues Minnesota over law banning AI 'nudification' tools - MEDIANAMA

Access the court order here. Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI has sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in federal court. The company argues that a state law banning access to AI tools that create fake nude images violates the US Constitution's free speech protections. The company filed the case on Monday, days before the law is due to take effect on August 1, 2026. It has asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and stop Minnesota from enforcing it. The law requires companies running websites, apps or software to block access to nudification tools. These tools can digitally remove a person's clothing or create fake nude images. It also bans advertising such services. A person shown in such an image can sue the company responsible and seek compensation, punitive damages and legal costs. The state attorney general can also seek a civil penalty of up to $500,000 for each unlawful access, download or use. The case could test how far US states can go in regulating AI products that can be used to create non-consensual sexual images. What xAI argues: xAI does not challenge Minnesota's stated aim of preventing non-consensual sexual images. However, it argues that the law goes beyond that purpose and could also cover lawful expression. According to the lawsuit, the law may also apply to images created with the consent of the person shown. It may also cover images made by that person. The company says it could even apply to content with artistic, humorous or political value. The company also argues that Minnesota has defined intimate body parts too broadly. It further says the law does not protect companies that make serious efforts to prevent misuse. The complaint says liability could apply "even if the company has deployed near-perfect, state-of-the-art technical controls to prevent the generation of nude images." It also argues that companies could be punished for content created by users who bypass their safeguards. "Images and videos that users might manage to create in violation of Grok's terms of service, which is possible only by evading sophisticated, state-of-the-art controls that xAI employs," the lawsuit states. xAI says the law will force it to limit Grok Imagine's image-editing functions. It argues that this could also restrict content protected under the First Amendment. The company also points to existing state and federal laws. These include the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. xAI says these laws already address the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. They also require platforms to provide removal mechanisms. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges by Elon Musk's companies against state AI laws. In 2025, X challenged Minnesota's election deepfake law on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment and the liability protections available to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The company also filed a similar challenge against California's election deepfake law. Minnesota defends the law: Ellison said his office had not yet received or reviewed the lawsuit when he issued a statement. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," he said. Minnesota's law differs from many existing deepfake laws because it targets the companies providing nudification technology, not only the people who use it to create or distribute images. Texas has taken a narrower approach. Its law can hold a platform liable when it knows that an image was created without consent or fails to remove it after receiving notice. Grok's deepfake controversy: The lawsuit follows a global backlash against Grok earlier this year. The criticism centred on its role in generating sexualised images of women and children. An analysis by the Center for Countering Digital Hate estimated that Grok generated about 3 million sexualised images. The estimate covered an 11-day period between December 29 and January 8. It said around 23,000 of them depicted children. "That is a shocking rate of one sexualized image of a child every 41 seconds," the organisation said. The European Union and the United Kingdom opened investigations, while officials in India, France and Malaysia also raised concerns. xAI later said it would restrict image editing involving real people in revealing clothing in countries where such content is illegal. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," the company said in January. The company says Grok's terms prohibit illegal, abusive or privacy-violating use, including the creation of non-consensual nude or sexual images. It says it can suspend users, terminate accounts and report suspected child sexual abuse material. "xAI takes violations of its terms of service seriously," the lawsuit states. The company has also sued a user accused of using Grok to generate child sexual abuse material. However, the Minnesota case raises a broader question. Can laws targeting AI tool providers survive constitutional scrutiny? The issue is whether laws targeting AI tool providers can survive constitutional scrutiny when those tools can produce both illegal material and constitutionally protected expression.

Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over legislation banning 'nudification' technology

Elon Musk's company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state's first-in-the-nation law that bans "nudification" technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Musk's company sued Monday in federal court, days before the law is set to take effect Saturday and make Minnesota the first state to try to outlaw the increasingly proliferating technology that lets people use AI to to create fake nude images of real people. The law was signed in May. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI -- whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere -- said it does not contest the state's interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota's law "extends far beyond that goal," banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. The lawsuit argues there is no "safe harbor" provision for companies that make good faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. It also says the law's definition of "intimate part" is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. In a statement, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office had not been served with the lawsuit yet or seen it. "But I know that using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI policy. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm on an emotional, personal, and professional level," Ellison said. State laws over election deepfakes have had mixed results in courts. California's law was blocked over First Amendment speech protections. Minnesota's law has thus far survived a 2025 court challenge by Musk's company. The law is distinct from state and federal laws that outlaw deepfakes, AI-generated sexually explicit images of people without their consent. Those laws typically penalize the people who use the tools to make these images, not the makers of the tools themselves. The federal Take it Down Act, passed last year, also requires websites and apps to implement a process to remove those images. In the lawsuit, xAI said the terms of service for using Grok prohibit using it for "any illegal, harmful, or abusive activities" that violate someone's privacy, including altering their image to nudify them or depict them in a sexually explicit image. It said it enforces those rules against violators through account suspensions or terminations, and by reporting suspected child sexual abuse content. XAI also said earlier this year that it has "zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content." After a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, Grok said in January it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place, preventing people from editing photos of real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal. Grok's "spicy mode" had allowed users to create explicit content, leading to a backlash from governments worldwide. "We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, underwear and other revealing attire," xAI said in a January statement.

Does Elon Musk want to kill the law that bans using AI to undress people?

Elon Musk's xAI wants to stop a Minnesota law set for August 1. The rule prevents websites and apps from offering tools that create AI-generated nude images of people. xAI believes the law restricts certain constitutionally protected speech, but what does this curious move mean? A law aimed at platforms rather than users The difference here lies in who is held responsible. Other similar rules act against whoever generates or publishes the content, while Minnesota wants to go after the companies that provide the technology and sets penalties of up to $500,000 per violation. xAI argues, however, that the definition covers consensual content and says that "personal parts" is a very broad description that can easily include parts shown in public. It also seeks protection for companies that apply filters to stop this kind of content from being generated in good faith. Grok is back at the center of the debate The case comes after the controversy over sexualized images generated through Grok and, without a doubt, draws attention because of its nature. While much of the discussion around this lawsuit centers on who could oppose a law that protects us from non-consensual images, xAI says its terms already prohibit these uses, has blocks in place, and even sued a user accused of bypassing its filters. The court will have to decide how far Minnesota can go in regulating a tool or how users use it. With just days to go before the law takes effect, we'll see how events unfold.