Minnesota’s AI ‘Nudify’ App Ban Takes Effect After Judge Rejects xAI’s Emergency Request

A U.S. federal judge has allowed Minnesota’s landmark ban on artificial intelligence-powered “nudify” applications to take effect, rejecting xAI’s bid to temporarily block the law while its constitutional challenge proceeds.

The ruling marks an early legal setback for xAI, the artificial intelligence company owned by SpaceX, as regulators across the United States intensify efforts to curb AI tools capable of generating non-consensual intimate images.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied xAI’s request for a temporary restraining order, allowing the legislation to come into force on August 1 as scheduled.

In his ruling, Frank placed significant emphasis on the timing of the company’s legal challenge. He noted that xAI waited nearly three months after Minnesota’s governor signed the legislation before seeking emergency relief.

“xAI filed its request for a temporary restraining order on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect,” Frank wrote.

“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.”

The decision does not resolve the broader constitutional challenge. Instead, it means Minnesota can begin enforcing the law while the lawsuit continues through the courts.

Minnesota’s legislation is widely regarded as the first U.S. law specifically targeting AI applications designed to digitally remove clothing from photographs or generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent.

The legislation is part of a broader wave of AI regulation emerging across U.S. states as policymakers seek to address harms created by increasingly powerful generative AI systems before comprehensive federal legislation is enacted. Unlike broader AI governance proposals that regulate developers or foundation models, Minnesota’s law directly targets a specific category of applications that have become increasingly accessible through consumer AI tools.

In its lawsuit, xAI argues the legislation sweeps too broadly and unlawfully restricts protected speech. The company contends the law is “overinclusive” and maintains that policymakers could achieve the same public safety objectives through narrower measures that place fewer restrictions on AI technologies.

The lawsuit argues there are “far less restrictive alternatives that function to achieve the same ends,” signaling that the legal battle is likely to center on constitutional questions surrounding free speech, innovation, and the appropriate scope of state regulation.

The case could become an important test of how courts balance First Amendment protections with growing concerns over AI-generated abuse.

The lawsuit comes after mounting concerns about the rapid spread of AI-generated non-consensual sexual imagery.

Earlier this year, users of X, the social media platform owned by SpaceX, used xAI’s Grok chatbot to generate and circulate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. The incident prompted investigations and enforcement actions, intensifying scrutiny of safeguards implemented by AI developers and social media platforms.

The controversy also added momentum to legislative efforts aimed at restricting technologies capable of producing deepfake pornography, one of the fastest-growing forms of AI abuse globally.

However, Minnesota’s action underpins a wider shift in AI regulation toward addressing specific high-risk applications rather than attempting to regulate artificial intelligence as a whole. In recent months, lawmakers and regulators in multiple jurisdictions have introduced measures targeting deepfakes, election misinformation, AI-generated fraud and synthetic intimate imagery.

The approach mirrors a broader regulatory trend in which governments are prioritizing the most immediate public safety risks posed by generative AI while more comprehensive AI governance frameworks continue to evolve.

The case, however, represents another legal and regulatory challenge as xAI expands Grok’s capabilities. Although the immediate bid to halt the law has failed, the underlying lawsuit remains active, meaning the courts could still ultimately determine whether Minnesota’s pioneering restrictions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.