xAI、ミネソタ州の「nudification」禁止法に異議申し立てし訴訟へ

Skip to main content

Grok, is this statute constitutional?

Grok, is this statute constitutional?

by Sarah Jeong

Jul 30, 2026, 6:06 AM GMT+9

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

Sarah Jeong

is a reporter who writes about law, technology, speech, and democracy. A journalist trained as a lawyer, she has been writing about tech for 10 years.

xAI is suing Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison over a law passed back in May that broadly targets “nudification” apps, claiming that the statute’s punitive provisions leave the company with “no practical choice but to restrict Grok Imagine’s image-editing features in various ways.” The law, the company argues, violates the First Amendment.

Back in January, Grok flooded the internet with millions of sexually explicit deepfakes, including images of minors. In another era, a content moderation disaster of this magnitude would have had the CEO flipping the kill switch on the product within hours. But in Elon Musk’s brave new world, the chatbot was left to pump out pornographic images for days. “Grok now hitting #1 on the App Store in one country after another!” he posted in the midst of the deepfake epidemic.

Something had gone wrong. Was the law simply not up to the task of curbing an explosion of nonconsensual nudes? Governments around the world were asking fairly similar questions. The EU launched an investigation, as did the United Kingdom. There was backlash from French, Indian, and Malaysian government officials. And while the American federal government was noticeably quieter on the issue, blue states like California and Minnesota took a harder line.

In Minnesota, the state legislature passed a law targeting “nudification” technology, prohibiting site owners from allowing people to “access, download, or use” such software.

The Verge Daily

A free daily digest of the news that matters most.

Email (required)