Judge denies xAI's bid to block Minnesota's first-in-nation 'nudify' app ban

A federal judge on Friday denied xAI's request to block Minnesota's ban on apps that let users create non-consensual sexualized images, clearing the way for the first-in-the-nation law to take effect on August 1. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled that xAI's lawsuit can proceed, but the law will remain in force during the litigation.

Judge Frank's decision hinged on timing. xAI filed its request for a temporary restraining order on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed the law, and only 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," Frank wrote.

What the Minnesota law does

The law, the first of its kind in the United States, prohibits apps that allow users to "nudify" images, a practice that has surged with the rise of generative AI. It targets tools that can strip clothing from photos or create sexualized deepfakes without consent. Violators face civil penalties and potential criminal charges, though the exact enforcement mechanisms are still being defined by state regulators.

• The ban applies to any app or service that offers nudification capabilities, including those hosted outside Minnesota if they serve state residents.
• It includes provisions for victims to seek damages and injunctive relief against both app developers and platforms that distribute such tools.
• The law also mandates that app stores and online marketplaces take reasonable steps to remove or block access to prohibited apps.
• Exemptions exist for legitimate uses, such as medical imaging or artistic expression, but the law's broad language has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups.

Context and what's next

The lawsuit is part of a broader backlash against xAI's Grok chatbot, which earlier this year was used by users of Elon Musk's social media platform X to flood the platform with non-consensual sexualized images. That incident triggered investigations and bans, and it has made xAI a focal point in the debate over AI-generated abuse.

xAI argues the Minnesota law is "overinclusive" and that "there are far less restrictive alternatives that function to achieve the same ends." The company's legal team has signaled it will continue to press the case, potentially seeking a preliminary injunction after the law takes effect. Legal experts say the delay in filing could hurt xAI's credibility in court, but the substantive constitutional questions, including free speech and due process, remain unresolved.

For now, Minnesota's law is in force, and other states are watching closely. Similar bills have been introduced in at least a dozen legislatures, and a federal proposal is pending in Congress. The outcome of xAI's lawsuit could set a precedent for how courts balance AI innovation against the need to protect individuals from digital abuse.