Up to $500,000. That’s what Minnesota can fine a platform every single time someone accesses one sexual deepfake, and a viral image means that number multiplies fast. xAI asked a federal judge to stop the state from enforcing that. Twice now, it has been told no.
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied a motion xAI filed at the end of July that would have blocked enforcement of the ban, which would have effectively nullified the law. With the law in force, Frank has now denied a second motion. The message is hard to misread: injunctions resting on xAI’s claim that the law is irreparably harming it aren’t going to clear the bar. The case itself, though, apparently has enough merit to keep going.
The judge’s line on harm
In his September 4 decision, Frank wrote “because xAI has not demonstrated irreparable harm and the balance of harms tips steeply in favor of the State, xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.”
But the rest of the text points to a long road for the broader legal effort. “The constitutional issues raised by the parties are complex, particularly when considered in the context of this new technology and the risks that it poses to the public. These issues deserve, and will receive, full consideration. To be sure, a determination of xAI’s constitutional claims will be made in the near future because the State has filed a motion to dismiss that places these issues front and center. In the future, the Court may also consider whether xAI is entitled to permanent injunctive relief on the merits.”
Read that carefully. The judge isn’t saying xAI is wrong. He’s saying it hasn’t shown the kind of injury that justifies freezing a law before the argument is settled.
What the law actually covers
The statute bans nudification apps by going after service providers, meaning the apps and online platforms themselves rather than the individual users. And its definition of nudity is broader than what you can’t show on broadcast TV. It covers the “primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.”
That breadth is the hinge of xAI’s case.
Sumo wrestlers as a test case
The suit argues the law is an unconstitutional curb on free speech, not merely a burden on one company. It also argues violations will happen with no intent to do harm at all. Under a definition that wide, xAI says, AI generations of shirtless men, harmless AI generations in swimwear and satirical images all get swept in as deepfakes.
Its own example: an AI-generated image the company supplies of Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as sumo wrestlers, which it says could be treated as a violation.
It’s a deliberately silly picture making a serious point about where a statute’s edges sit.
What Musk said when Grok was the problem
During the Grok deepfake wave this past December and January, the notable Musk-friendly account @cb_doge defended Grok, saying criticism was “like blaming a pen for writing something bad.” Musk replied to that post personally, saying “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”
That’s a company drawing a line at the user, not the tool. Minnesota’s law draws it at the platform.
The lawsuit xAI filed itself
xAI, also known as SpaceXAI, has already taken dramatic action against at least one user. In July it sued an individual in South Carolina who had been arrested for alleged sexual abuse of minors. The suit alleges that this person’s “actions were a calculated scheme to weaponize Plaintiff’s tool for criminal ends, exposing real victims to profound and lasting harm, while exposing Plaintiff to significant legal risk and reputational damage.”
The same filing casts xAI as a quiet anti-child-exploitation vigilante, catching violations, punishing them and reporting the alleged violators to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It claims to have “suspended 52,222 accounts and made 73,604 reports to NCMEC in 2026, resulting in (at least) 244 arrests.”
Hold those two positions next to each other. The company telling a federal judge it’s being irreparably harmed by a law aimed at nudification tools is the same company citing 73,604 reports and 244 arrests as proof of how seriously it takes the abuse. Minnesota’s motion to dismiss is what puts the constitutional question in front of Frank next, and that’s the filing worth watching.
