Ethan Carter
“xAI does not dispute Minnesota’s intention to prevent the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real individuals without their permission. […]”
This statement comes from the opening paragraph of a lawsuit filed against Minnesota’s Attorney General by xAI, LLC, the division of SpaceX specializing in artificial intelligence, which has recently rebranded as SpaceXAI. It seems that the company has not yet updated its LLC and main website URL to reflect the new SpaceXAI branding. They should expedite this process, as I find myself repeatedly typing out the old name.
As many may remember, during the recent holiday season, a feature of xAI’s Grok chatbot gained significant attention when users began generating numerous non-consensual sexual images involving real individuals, including minors. An extrapolated estimate suggested that Grok produced approximately 23,000 sexualized images of children. A subsequent statement on X indicated that Grok’s functionalities were adjusted to address this issue. “We are dedicated to ensuring that X remains a safe environment for all users and maintain a strict zero-tolerance policy against any form of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content,” part of the statement read.
Recently, Minnesota enacted a law prohibiting nudification applications and websites—any technology that transforms images of clothed individuals into nude representations, typically using AI. The law, designated HF 1606, prohibits the use of such software and imposes penalties on the companies involved—enabling the state to impose fines and opening the door for lawsuits from affected individuals. The law “forbids the access, downloading, or utilization of nudification technology, unless the website, application, or software significantly involves technological or artistic skill from a human creator directing and controlling the output,” as reported by CBS News. This law is set to take effect next month.
The lawsuit filed by xAI claims that the law is excessively broad, restricting legitimate applications of AI. It also argues that the law neglects to consider intent and imposes “enormous civil penalties,” despite its purported flaws.
A significant portion of the lawsuit challenges the law’s definitions of nudity. It contends that Minnesota overlooked a reasonable definition of “intimate” body parts, opting instead for a definition derived from a statute addressing specific types of physical contact. the lawsuit asserts that the law prohibits software from generating images depicting female or male breasts and any representation of an individual’s “inner thigh.”
The lawsuit provides specific examples of what it claims would be considered prohibited nudification under Minnesota’s law if implemented. One example is referred to as a “viral snapshot” associated with a social media post by President Trump. This image includes Trump alongside “Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum […] shirtless in the reflecting pool at the Washington Mall, along with an unidentified (possibly fictional) woman.” Unfortunately, the AI-generated image includes visible male breasts and part of Trump’s AI-generated inner thigh.
The lawsuit argues that the penalty structure under the new law creates a scenario where generating just ten seemingly innocuous images, like the Trump reflecting pool photo, could result in $5 million in penalties for the company responsible for producing them. “A business whose users create one hundred thousand images that fall under HF 1606 (which is not unlikely for a publicly accessible platform with millions of users generating billions of images) could face an astonishing $50 billion in fines,” claims the lawsuit.
The lawsuit highlights this critical point:
“Liability applies even if the image possesses artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious significance, and (again) even if the company has implemented state-of-the-art technical measures to prevent the production of nude images.”
The lawsuit requests that the judge declare HF 1606 unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement. In a separate case, a Minnesota ban on prediction markets, which was also set to take effect next month, was halted by a recent judicial ruling.
Governor Tim Walz, who endorsed the bill into law, made the following comment regarding the lawsuit on Twitter:
See you in court, creep. https://t.co/u5yIe4hdlr
— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) July 28, 2026
Daniel Mercer
Brandon Fletcher
