IP Law Daily, TECHNOLOGY/INTERNET—D. Minn.: xAI denied preliminary bar against enforcement of Minnesota ‘anti-nudification’ law, (Sep 8, 2026)

By Thomas Long, J.D.

The provider of “Grok” generative AI tools failed to show that it would be irreparably harmed or that other equitable considerations tipped in its favor.

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, X.AI LLC (“xAI”)—a subsidiary of SpaceX—has been denied a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of Minnesota’s new law banning the provision of “nudification” technology to users. The law subjects software companies and platform operators to civil penalties and private lawsuits for distributing or hosting generative AI tools that allow users to create sexual “deepfakes” of nonconsenting individuals. According to the federal district court in St. Paul, xAI failed to show that it would sustain irreparable harm without preliminary injunctive relief. First, xAI unreasonably delayed taking action to challenge the statute. Second, any harm from enforcement of the statute would be monetary in nature and therefore reparable. In addition, the court determined that the balance of harms and the public interest strongly weighed in favor of the State (X.AI LLC v. Ellison, No. 0:26-cv-03425-DWF-DTS (D. Minn. Sep. 4, 2026)).

“Anti-nudification” law. The Minnesota statute (H.F. 1606, 2026 Minnesota Session Laws Chapter 72) is the first in the country to impose liability on platform operators themselves, rather than only the creators of sexually abusive “deepfake” images and videos. The law prohibits persons who own or control a website, application, software, program, or other service from nudifying an image or video on behalf of a user, or allowing users to engage in nudification via the service. “Nudification” is described by the law as the process by which an image or video is altered or generated to depict an “intimate part” not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual. The term covers altered or generated images or videos that are “so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual.” It took effect on August 1.

xAI’s constitutional challenge. A few days before the law took effect, xAI filed suit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, seeking an injunction to prevent him from enforcing the statute. According to xAI, the new law will unconstitutionally interfere with the operation and marketing of its flagship family of generative AI models known as Grok, which includes tools for altering and generating images. The complaint asserted that the law violates xAI’s expressive rights by imposing strict liability for conduct that is “possible only by evading sophisticated, state-of-the-art controls that xAI employs.” The company filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. More details on the law and xAI’s complaint are available in a Vital Briefing article available here.

Delay and irreparable harm. The State argued that xAI’s motion for preliminary injunction should be denied for lack of diligence and irreparable harm. The court noted that the challenged law was signed on May 7, 2026, and it was nearly three months before xAI filed its motion for preliminary injunction, just three days before the law was scheduled to take effect. In the court’s view, xAI did not provide a valid explanation for its delay.

“Acknowledging that there is no bright-line rule marking when a motion for a preliminary injunction must be filed in a case such as this, there is also no serious dispute that xAI is a sophisticated and well-resourced litigant with the means to move quickly when its interests are at stake,” said the court. “If xAI genuinely feared irreparable harm, the Court does not doubt it would have acted more quickly to file this action and move for injunctive relief. The fact that it did not do so strongly suggests a lack of irreparable harm”.

Beyond its delay in taking action, other factors weighed against a finding of irreparable harm. The risk xAI faced from enforcement of the law was monetary and therefore reparable. “Even if penalties were assessed, which is unlikely because xAI has disabled its nudification tool in Minnesota …, those financial penalties could be recouped in the event that the law is eventually invalidated,” the court explained. Additionally, costs incurred by xAI in taking technological measures to adjust its AI tools to avoid violating the Minnesota law were not irreparable.

With respect to xAI’s argument that irreparable harm could be found in the law’s violation of its First Amendment rights, the court said that “even in the First Amendment context, a party must make a clear showing of likely irreparable harm to justify the imposition of a preliminary injunction,” which xAI had not done. Moreover, when undue delay in taking action is involved, a court may independently deny a motion for a preliminary injunction, even when the First Amendment is implicated.

Balance of harms; public interest. The lack of irreparable harm was enough to warrant denial of the motion, but the court also examined the balance of harms and the public interest. “When a preliminary injunction is sought against the government, the balance of harms and public interest merge,” the court explained. In the court’s view, these factors tipped steeply in favor of the State. The challenged law was enacted “democratically and nearly unanimously,” with the aim of protecting the public from the harm caused by nudification technology. There was no dispute that the State had an interest in preventing the proliferation of “photorealistic sexualized images.” The court reiterated that xAI’s evidence of harm to itself from enforcement of the statute was “unconvincing,” especially given xAI’s delay in seeking injunctive relief.

Conclusion. “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,” the court said. “These issues deserve, and will receive, full consideration.” Noting that a motion to dismiss filed by the State was under consideration, the court also said that a determination on the constitutional claims would be made soon. The question of whether xAI was entitled to permanent injunctive relief would also be decided later. “Until then, 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 court concluded.

The Case is No. 0:26-cv-03425-DWF-DTS.

Judge: Frank, D.

Attorneys: Andrew Leiendecker (Stinson LLP) for X.AI LLC. Janine Wetzel Kimble, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, for Keith Ellison.

Companies: X.AI LLC

Cases: AINews PublicityRights TechnologyInternet MinnesotaNews GCNNews