Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over law banning nudify apps

[midian182]

What just happened? You'd imagine that nobody would object to a Minnesota law that would ban nudify apps in the state, but one company is so opposed to the plan that it's filed a lawsuit against the state's attorney general. Unsurprisingly, that company is Elon Musk's xAI, now called SpaceXAI.

The Minnesota law, which comes into effect this Saturday, would ban apps and websites that allow users to generate non-consensual sexualized imagery. The companies behind these services would be fined $50,000 every time someone creates one of these images.

xAI writes in its complaint that the law is an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a "clumsy attempt to prohibit nudification." Lawyers for the firm say that in addition to being a violation of free speech, the fines are too high. It noted that a business whose users generated 100,000 of these images would be charged $50 billion.

xAI insists that it doesn't have an issue with Minnesota's "interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent," but it claims the law "extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanction."

– Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong) January 4, 2026

Given xAI's history when it comes to this sort of thing, the lawsuit isn't a big shock. Its chatbot Grok made plenty of headlines at the start of the year for the thousands of "undressing" deepfakes it was generating every hour, including images of minors.

The company is still facing a proposed class-action lawsuit from victims. That suit also claims that xAI failed to share information with authorities about alleged perpetrators who used Grok to create nudified images of the victims. It also faced investigations in the UK and EU over its abilities.

xAI says in its complaint that it strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent, adding that it has filed suit against users who evade its extensive technological blockers to generate such images. It recently sued a South Carolina user for using Grok to create intimate images of adults and minors.

Musk's company says that if the law comes into effect in its current form, it will have no choice but to restrict Grok Imagine's image-editing features in various ways. xAI added that "protected speech freely available before the law takes effect will thus be chilled." It requests that the court declare the law unconstitutional and prevent the state from enforcing it.

– Attorney General Keith Ellison (@AGEllison) July 28, 2026

Responding to the suit, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wrote that "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." He said he'll see xAI in court. Governor Tim Walz went for a more RoboCop-like "See you in court, creep."

Permalink to story:

Elon Musk's xAI sues Minnesota over law banning nudify apps

 

[dangh]

Oh ffs. what, the only grok selling point just got put down? I sure don't care about US puritanism and I find stupid women breast is worse thing to show than bleeding people, but defending a tool used mostly for creating fake nudes often to bully people is a joke.

 

[Endymio]

Oh ffs. what, the only grok selling point just got put down? I sure don't care about US puritanism and I find stupid women breast is worse thing to show than bleeding people, but defending a tool used mostly for creating fake nudes often to bully people is a joke.

Claiming AI models like Grok are "mostly used for creating fake nudes" is like claiming electricity is useful for nothing more than allowing basement-dwelling nerds to play videogames rather than interacting with people in the real world".

And I realize you could care less about facts, but the US already has laws against using fake nudes to harrass people. Minnesota is attempting to -- in typical liberal manner --- shift responsibility from the person who actually commits the crime, to the tools he used to do so.

 

[gingerbill]

a tool used mostly for creating fake nudes often to bully people is a joke.

What a liar you are . this is such an obvious lie .I assume you know it's a lie . What a liar.

 

[Dr Roboto]

Claiming AI models like Grok are "mostly used for creating fake nudes" is like claiming electricity is useful for nothing more than allowing basement-dwelling nerds to play videogames rather than interacting with people in the real world".

And I realize you could care less about facts, but the US already has laws against using fake nudes to harrass people. Minnesota is attempting to -- in typical liberal manner --- shift responsibility from the person who actually commits the crime, to the tools he used to do so.

The user is responsible. So is the company that knowingly leaves the abuse button enabled when it could disable it. Calling safeguards “censorship” doesn’t absolve either one.

 

[Endymio]

The user is responsible. So is the company that knowingly leaves the abuse button enabled

There is no "press here to create abusive image" button on these models. The vast majority of these images are not illegal: they are done for satirical or politically-expressive purposes (such as the above image of Maduro), or are consensual modification of existing images or subjects. There is no way for an AI model to know the difference: only the person performing the request does.

Furthermore, the MN law doesn't just criminalize "nudes", but any image that can be considered a "sexually explicit" pose-- which means whatever a prosecutor chooses it to mean. Also, it makes the software owner liable even when the person generating the image uses VPN or some other technology to disguise or hide their location: meaning this MN law effectively must be applied across the entire planet. Do you really want the precedent of laws passed in China or Iran to dictate what US companies are allowed?

And the law isn't even restricted to photo-realistic images: it applies to cartoon and line-art images as well. Nor is the fine limited to $50,000 -- it legally allows the person depicted to sue for pretty much whatever sum they wish, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "mental anguish".

 

[Kirby1]

Musk is king of the Incels.

 

[pnntmp]

Governor Tim Walz went for a more RoboCop-like "See you in court, creep."

The most newsworthy part here is Tim Walz (a.k.a. Tampon Tim) calling someone 'creep'.

That's the same guy who put menstrual products in boys' bathrooms, which immediately became the gold standard of creepines.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Claiming AI models like Grok are "mostly used for creating fake nudes" is like claiming electricity is useful for nothing more than allowing basement-dwelling nerds to play videogames rather than interacting with people in the real world".

And I realize you could care less about facts, but the US already has laws against using fake nudes to harrass people. Minnesota is attempting to -- in typical liberal manner --- shift responsibility from the person who actually commits the crime, to the tools he used to do so.

Came to see someone defend digitally created child porn, was not disappointed.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Came to see someone defend digitally created child porn, was not disappointed.

Grok blocks that lol. See the article:

[xAI] strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent

The article left out all specifics on why xAI has a problem with this law other than that it's "too broad". Here is a list of reasons why the law is actually too broad (and has nothing to do with what you suggest):
- The law applies regardless of whether the xAI prohibits users from using Grok for nudification, regardless of how many mitigations it's put in place, and regardless of how diligently it polices that conduct.
- The law applies even if the people depicted consented to it or created the image themselves, and even if the image is never shared.
- The law borrowed the definition of "intimate" from a criminal sexual-contact statute (ie. what's illegal to touch, not look). Instead, the law bans ordinary depictions of men without shirts, people in shorts or swimsuits, and other body parts routinely displayed in public—things that ordinary person would never consider "nudification".

The fact that xAI will be fined just for showing people in shorts that show anything above the knees is revealing about the lawmakers intentions. The way the law is written, AI creating an image of someone in many types of shorts is illegal because that would reveal the inner thigh. Since touching the inner thigh would be considered sexual contact, this law labels image generation like that as "nudification". It makes you wonder if this law is being passed because Minnesota wants to cater to its population of Muslim people who would also be interested covering that. That's the only legitimate reason I can think of for writing it that way.

In fact, if TechSpot generated the thumbnail for this article using AI, it would be considered a violation lol: