Judge rejects Musk bid to halt Minnesota ban on AI nudifying

The judge said xAI's decision to wait until three days before the law went into effect to file the motion undermines the company's claim it needs emergency relief.MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — A federal judge on Friday denied xAI’s request for a preliminary injunction against Minnesota’s first-in-the-nation legislation banning AI “nudification" technology.In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled Elon Musk’s AI company failed to prove it would suffer irreparable harm if the statute remained active. He added that Minnesota is well within its rights to address the rapid rise of nonconsensual AI imagery.“AI nudification technology has resulted in a flood of sexualized images and allowed the harmful images to spread online and, in many cases, remain online forever,” the Bill Clinton appointee said in the ruling.xAI’s “Grok Imagine” allows users to create images and videos in seconds by typing a short description of what they wish to create.xAI has long maintained its terms of service prohibit users from generating nonconsensual nude or sexualized images, though Minnesota officials claim those policies are insufficient by themselves and that plenty of illegal image generation slips through the cracks.SpaceX, xAI’s parent company, set aside a fund this year with over $500 million for litigation losses stemming from Grok Imagine’s “Spicy” and “Unhinged” modes — a reserve Frank cited as evidence that xAI’s self-policing efforts fall short.The statute challenged in xAI’s initial suit, HF 1606, took effect in August and prohibits anyone who owns or controls a website, app or software from allowing users to “nudify” or sexually alter images using AI generation.Violations of the statute carry penalties of up to $500,000.Echoing his previous refusal to issue a temporary restraining order against the ban in July, Frank said xAI’s decision to wait three months to file for a preliminary injunction weighs heavily against the company.“xAI is a sophisticated and well-resourced litigant with the means to move quickly when its interests are at stake,” Frank said in the ruling. “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 judge also noted xAI’s monetary concerns do not meet the threat of irreparable harm as any assessed penalty could be recouped if the law is eventually invalidated.While xAI argues it will suffer commercial injury without a preliminary injunction — largely due to the need to design, test and deploy geographically targeted controls within the image-editing software — Frank said that argument alone is not enough.“With respect to the adjustment of its AI tools, by xAI’s own account, the adjustment has already been made, and xAI does not provide evidence that there will be any future cost,” he said. “In addition, xAI claims it is expending substantial resources, but the evidentiary support for this is vague and conclusory. Merely stating so is not enough.”Frank outlined the damage caused by AI nudification technology in the ruling, pointing to testimony from three women during a Minnesota Legislature hearing in February who claimed a perpetrator used the technology to create realistic pornographic material using their likeness and the likeness of over 75 other women.Material provided during the same hearing revealed over 95% of manipulated images in 2023 were nonconsensual, sexually explicit and featured women.The committee also heard evidence that nudification technology is being exploited to create child sexual material, backed by internet watch groups that have flagged hundreds of thousands of instances of child pornography being created with AI in recent years.Frank noted Minnesota enacted the statute with a near unanimous vote, signaling the deep desire from state officials to protect the public from harm stemming from AI nudification technology.“The state’s choice to prohibit the provision of AI tools to users who create such images is a direct response to the unique harms stemming from the new technology and the state’s conclusion that curtailing user violations after harmful images are circulated is not enough,” he said in the ruling.xAI and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office did not respond to initial requests for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads