Minnesota passed the first state law in the country banning AI "nudification" tools outright. Elon Musk's xAI wants a federal judge to stop it before it can be enforced.
The law, HF 1606, prohibits anyone who owns or controls a website, app or piece of software from letting users generate nude or sexually altered images of people using AI. Violations carry penalties of up to $500,000. It took effect this month, after a judge already declined to block it once.
xAI's First Amendment Argument
xAI's attorney, Robert Dunn, told the court Minnesota's Legislature moved so fast on the issue that it skipped the constitutional analysis entirely.
"It's clear the Legislature did not even consider the First Amendment problems," Dunn said.
His argument centers on how broadly the law is written. Because the statute doesn't carve out exceptions for consent, artistic expression, satire, or a user modifying an image of themselves, xAI says it could expose platforms to massive penalties for lawful conduct that has nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography. Dunn pointed to a specific example: someone nudifying an image of themselves would technically violate the law as written.
xAI says it already bans users from generating nonconsensual sexual images under its own terms of service and works to remove violators. Minnesota doesn't think that's sufficient.
The State's Response
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Janine Kimble argued a written policy means little without enforcement that actually works, especially when the harm happens the moment an image is created.
"It's certainly not surprising that xAI is not coming into federal court and saying, 'We support these images.' They say, 'Look at our terms of service, we tell people not to do this.' And yet, they still are reporting tens of thousands of users creating images," Kimble said.
Minnesota also cited estimates that roughly 95% of AI-manipulated sexual images depict real people without their consent, arguing that whatever narrow lawful use case xAI is defending represents a small fraction of how the technology actually gets used.
Notably, the federal government filed its own motion this week backing xAI, arguing that Minnesota's law sweeps up constitutionally protected conduct that federal law doesn't prohibit, and warning that state-by-state restrictions could hinder American competitiveness in AI.
Where Florida's Law Differs
Florida took a different legal approach to the same problem. Under Florida Statute 836.13, generating, soliciting or knowingly sharing a nonconsensual AI-altered sexual image is a third-degree felony, carrying up to five years in prison and $5,000 per image in fines, aimed at the individual creating the content rather than the platform hosting it.
Platforms operating in Florida also face a separate requirement to remove nonconsensual altered images within 48 hours of a valid request or risk liability under the state's consumer protection law.
That split, criminalizing the user in Florida versus restricting the platform in Minnesota, is likely to matter a great deal for how courts eventually sort out which approach survives a First Amendment challenge.
It also reflects a real disagreement among states about where the legal responsibility should sit. Minnesota's approach assumes platforms are best positioned to prevent harm before it happens, since they control the tools. Florida's assumes the person creating the image bears responsibility, and treats the platform's role as more like an accessory, obligated to remove harmful content quickly rather than prevent its creation entirely.
What This Means for Miami
Any AI platform operating in Florida, including Miami-based AI companies building image or video generation tools, is already living under a stricter individual liability standard than Minnesota's, with felony exposure attached to specific conduct rather than a platform-level ban.
The outcome of xAI's Minnesota case will still matter locally. If a federal court finds platform-focused nudification bans unconstitutional, it could reshape how future Florida legislation in this space gets written, and put pressure on lawmakers to lean further into individual liability models like Florida's rather than broader platform restrictions.
