Half a million dollars. That is the ceiling on what Minnesota can charge a platform for each individual instance of someone accessing a single sexual deepfake — and once an image goes viral, the multiplication is brutal. xAI went to federal court seeking to halt the state from enforcing it. On two separate occasions, the answer has come back no.
A motion xAI lodged in late July, which would have barred enforcement of the ban and in practice gutted the law, was denied by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank. The statute stayed in effect, and Frank has since turned down a second motion as well. The takeaway is not subtle: injunctions built on xAI’s argument that the law is inflicting irreparable damage on it will not meet the standard. The underlying case, on the other hand, seems substantial enough to proceed.
The judge’s line on harm
Frank’s September 4 ruling stated “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.”
The remainder of the opinion, however, sketches a lengthy path ahead for the wider litigation. “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.”
The wording rewards a close read. Nowhere does the judge declare xAI mistaken. What he says is that the company has failed to establish the sort of injury that would warrant putting a law on ice before the dispute is resolved.
What the law actually covers
Rather than targeting individual users, the statute outlaws nudification apps by reaching the service providers — the apps and online platforms themselves. Its notion of nudity also stretches well past what broadcast television prohibits, extending to the “primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.”
That expansiveness is precisely where xAI’s argument turns.
Sumo wrestlers as a test case
According to the complaint, the law amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech rather than simply an inconvenience for a single firm. It further contends that violations will occur even where there is no intent to cause harm whatsoever. With a definition drawn that broadly, xAI maintains, AI generations of shirtless men, harmless AI generations in swimwear and satirical images all get swept in as deepfakes.
The company offers its own illustration: an AI-generated image it provides depicting Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker alongside former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as sumo wrestlers, which it argues could be deemed a violation.
The picture is intentionally absurd, and the point it makes about where a statute’s boundaries fall is anything but.
What Musk said when Grok was the problem
Back during the Grok deepfake surge across this past December and January, the prominent Musk-aligned account @cb_doge came to Grok’s defense, arguing the criticism was “like blaming a pen for writing something bad.” Musk himself responded to that post, writing “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”
There you have a company placing responsibility on the user rather than the tool. Minnesota’s statute places it on the platform.
The lawsuit xAI filed itself
xAI, which also goes by SpaceXAI, has already moved aggressively against at least one user. It brought suit in July against a South Carolina individual who had been arrested over alleged sexual abuse of minors. Per the complaint, 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.”
That same document portrays xAI as a low-profile watchdog against child exploitation — spotting violations, penalizing them and referring the alleged offenders to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The company states it has “suspended 52,222 accounts and made 73,604 reports to NCMEC in 2026, resulting in (at least) 244 arrests.”
Set those two stances side by side. The firm informing a federal judge that a law aimed at nudification tools is irreparably harming it is the very same firm pointing to 73,604 reports and 244 arrests as evidence of how gravely it treats the abuse. What lands the constitutional question on Frank’s desk next is Minnesota’s motion to dismiss, and that is the filing to keep an eye on.