US District Judge Donovan Frank denied a request from Elon Musk’s xAI for a preliminary injunction against the state’s ban on AI nudification tools earlier the month, keeping the ban enforced while the court considers if it is constitutional.
“The state has enacted, democratically and nearly unanimously, a civil statute aimed at protecting the public from the undisputed harm stemming from AI-nudification technology,” reads Frank’s ruling as reported by MPR News.
How the Nudify Ban Works
The law began as House File 1606 and is now in section 325E.91 of Minnesota statutes. Governor Tim Walz signed it in May, and it took effect on August 1, according to FOX 9.
It bars website and app owners from letting users run tools that generate nude images of real, identifiable people, and from offering or advertising those services. It does not affect editing software that requires human skill, such as Photoshop. Enforcement comes from two directions. MN Attorney General Keith Ellison can seek up to $500,000 per violation and separately, anyone depicted in one of the images can sue for damages and legal fees.
“That repulsive behavior is not welcome in Minnesota,” Ellison said to MPR News. “My office and I will continue to vigorously defend the law.”
xAI’s Second Loss
xAI sued in late July, three days before the law took effect, asking for a temporary restraining order. Frank refused that too, pointing to how long the company had waited to file. “Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate,” he wrote.
Musk’s company argues the statute “imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification,'” according to its filing. xAI also says it already prohibits users from generating non-consensual nude images with its Grok chatbot. The notice to appeal with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that the state’s motion to dismiss the case, is still pending.
Is it Illegal to Nudify Someone?
In Minnesota, the law now puts the liability on the platform that provides the tool, rather than just on the person who uses it. For the people most often targeted by nudify apps, including celebrities and adult performers and creators, there’s been little they could do to act against the practice. Minnesota’s private right of action gives them one option within the state, while other jurisdictions are taking different paths. In July, San Francisco ordered Apple and Google to pull nudify apps from their app stores, going after distribution rather than the tools’ operators.
What happens at the 8th Circuit will shape what comes next. If Minnesota’s law holds up on appeal, other states are likely to borrow its wording. If the appeals court strikes it down, that model stalls. For now, the law is running, and a platform found in violation faces a bill that could reach half a million dollars per violation.
