What does Minnesota's HF 1606 actually ban?

It bars any website, app, or service from letting users “nudify” a real person’s photo — creating or altering an image to show an intimate part not in the original. Violators face civil penalties of up to $500,000 per violation from the attorney general, plus lawsuits from the people depicted.

Is Grok Imagine unavailable in Minnesota right now?

Not yet. The law takes effect August 1, 2026, and xAI is asking a court to block it before then; Grok Imagine’s editing tools remain active in Minnesota while the case is pending.

Why does xAI say the law is unconstitutional?

Per the complaint, xAI argues the law imposes liability regardless of consent or artistic intent, and defines “intimate part” broadly enough to cover ordinary images like a shirtless man or a swimwear photo — which it says amounts to an overbroad restriction on speech protected by the First Amendment .

Have other places restricted AI nudify apps?

Yes — San Francisco ordered Apple and Google to remove nudify apps from their app stores earlier in 2026, though through a different approach than Minnesota’s fines-based law.

xAI Sues Minnesota Over Nation's First AI 'Nudify' Ban

xAI has asked a federal court to block Minnesota’s ban on AI “nudification” tools before it takes effect, arguing the law’s sweeping penalties violate the First Amendment.

The company behind the Grok chatbot, xAI, filed the lawsuit on July 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Attorney General Keith Ellison, according to the complaint. It asks the court to declare Minnesota’s House File 1606 unconstitutional and to block the state from enforcing it when it takes effect on August 1.

What the law bans

HF 1606, billed as the first state law of its kind, makes it illegal for a website, app, or service to let users “nudify” a real person’s image — generating or altering a picture so it depicts an intimate part not present in the original. Violators face a civil penalty of up to $500,000 per violation from the attorney general, plus a private right of action letting depicted individuals sue for damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

xAI’s argument

According to the complaint, xAI says the statute imposes liability regardless of whether the subject consented, whether the image has artistic, satirical, or journalistic value, or whether the developer intended any harm. The company also argues the law’s definition of “intimate part” is broad enough to sweep in ordinary depictions, such as a shirtless man or someone in swimwear.

xAI says it would have “no practical choice” but to withhold Grok Imagine’s image-editing features from Minnesota users to avoid that exposure — the restriction it is now asking the court to head off before the deadline.

The response

Ellison said “AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and can cause immense harm,” while Governor Tim Walz posted a shorter reply: “See you in court, creep.”

Minnesota’s law follows narrower moves elsewhere — San Francisco ordered Apple and Google to pull nudify apps from their stores earlier this year — but HF 1606 is the first to put developers on the hook for fines this large. How the case is decided could shape how other states write similar bills targeting AI-generated imagery.

What the law bans

xAI’s argument

The response

Frequently asked questions