On August 2, 2026, Beijing time, TechCrunch reported that a judge dismissed xAI's request to halt the implementation of Minnesota's relevant law. The state regulation took effect on August 1 and was not blocked by this emergency request. TechCrunch’s public summary only indicates that the law can continue to be implemented without detailing the court's reasoning. However, this procedural outcome does not mean that the court has confirmed the constitutionality of the law or that all of xAI's claims have been finally resolved; it merely confirms that the request to halt the law was denied.
Case Timeline and Relief Requests
The case was filed by X.AI LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, with case number 0:26-cv-03425-DWF-DTS. The defendant is State Attorney General Keith Ellison, appearing in his official capacity, and the case has been assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank. xAI filed its complaint on July 27 and submitted an emergency motion on July 29; TechCrunch's new entry was published at 8:26:04 PM on August 1, within this 24-hour discovery window.
In the emergency motion, xAI simultaneously applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit Ellison from enforcing Minnesota Statute §325E.91 against the company; as an alternative, the company requested that the court temporarily halt the entire regulation's enforcement. The motion also sought expedited proceedings on the grounds that the law would take effect on August 1. The filing states that xAI’s lawyers contacted the defendant’s lawyers and served the motion, notice of hearing, supporting memorandum, declarations, and proposed order on July 29. This is the scope of relief requested by the plaintiff, not legal conclusions adopted by the court.
Legal Scope, Definitions, and Exemptions
The state law encompasses owners and controllers of websites, applications, software, programs, or other services, prohibiting them from allowing users to access, download, or use the service for statutory nudification, or from performing that processing on a user's behalf. The law also prohibits promoting or advertising sites, apps, software, programs, or other services used for these purposes. The scope is defined by the type of service, specific conduct, and statutory image definition; it cannot be generalized as a blanket prohibition on all image editing activities.
Statutory nudification means modifying or generating images or videos so that an identifiable individual's intimate part appears where it was not shown in the original unaltered image, with a result realistic enough for a reasonable person to believe the part belongs to the person depicted. The law treats a natural person as identifiable when recognition is possible from the image, by the depicted person or another person, or from personal information associated with the image. If a service requires a human creator to use substantial individualized technical or artistic skill and judgment to direct, shape, or control the output, the statutory exemption applies; the regulatory boundary therefore depends on the definition and exemption together.
Enforcement Remedies and Stances
The state attorney general may enforce Minnesota Statute §8.31 by imposing civil fines up to $500,000 for each illegal access, download, or use request. Individuals depicted in images can also file a civil lawsuit seeking triple damages of actual compensatory harm, punitive damages, injunctions, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The law stipulates that collected civil fines support grants for victims of sexual exploitation, general crime, domestic violence, and child abuse. $500,000 is the statutory maximum; current public sources do not indicate any fines have been imposed on xAI.
In its supporting memorandum, xAI argues that the law restricts expression based on image content and covers too broadly by failing to distinguish consent, knowledge, or dissemination; these are arguments made under the First Amendment by the plaintiff, not judicial determinations. The company also states it will limit Grok Imagine's image editing features for Minnesota users when the law takes effect but does not provide a final list of restrictions. Jess Hanson, author of the bill, previously stated on the official Minnesota House page that the policy aims to protect children and women from sexual exploitation and other harms; this is the legislative position, not the court’s reason for handling the request.
Ruling Boundaries and Subsequent Records
The dispute remains centered on the regulatory objectives versus boundaries of free speech. TechCrunch's public entry confirms that the request to halt the law was denied, but only xAI’s motion, hearing notice, and supporting memorandum are publicly available court documents; there is no full text of a subsequent denial order. Therefore, existing materials do not specify what review standards were used by the court or whether it rejected a temporary restraining order or broader preliminary injunction, nor any additional conditions.
The listed sources have yet to disclose xAI's response to the rejection result, the state attorney general’s response, appeal notices, or subsequent schedules; they also do not clarify which restrictions Grok Imagine ultimately adopted in Minnesota. Verifiable public records going forward include subsequent court orders, appeals documents, formal enforcement records, and regional product arrangements; until these materials are available, the denial of an emergency request cannot be written as a final judgment on litigation or constitutionality.