Judge Frank denies xAI's preliminary injunction
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on September 4, 2026, denied xAI's request for a preliminary injunction against Minnesota's anti-AI-nudification statute, leaving the law in force while the company's constitutional challenge continues. Frank wrote that "the state has enacted, democratically and nearly unanimously, a civil statute aimed at protecting the public from the undisputed harm stemming from AI-nudification technology and the resulting proliferation of photorealistic sexualized images," while acknowledging that the constitutional issues "are complex, particularly when considered in the context of this new technology and the risks that it poses to the public."
Scope of the Minnesota statute and exposure for violators
The law, which took effect August 1, prohibits website operators, software developers, and others from allowing users to "nudify" images of identifiable people using AI technology, and allows Minnesota officials to fine companies that enable creation of AI-generated nude images of real people. State regulators may impose penalties of $500,000 per violation during the litigation. xAI, described in coverage as now operating under the SpaceXAI name, had argued in court that it would suspend affected features for Minnesota users to avoid fines.
Procedural posture and remaining deadlines
xAI sued in July 2026, just ahead of the law's August 1 effective date; Frank found that the company waited too long to file its challenge. The underlying case remains pending, and Minnesota's separate motion to dismiss the lawsuit is also still before the court. Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office "will continue to vigorously defend the law and the Minnesotans it was designed to protect from XAI's lawsuit," calling the targeted conduct "repulsive" and unwelcome in the state.
Why the court left the law enforceable
Frank's ruling emphasizes the financial and psychological harm to people depicted in fabricated intimate imagery and notes that AI has also been used to create child sexual abuse materials. By declining the injunction, the court signaled that those harms justify letting the statute operate while the broader First Amendment questions are examined on a fuller record.
Share this article
