Minnesota House File 1606 is a state act prohibiting the operation and promotion of "nudification" technology — software that alters or generates an image or video to depict intimate parts not present in the original image of an identifiable individual. Proposed for coding as a new section, Minn. Stat. § 325E.91, in the commerce chapter rather than the criminal code, the act creates a private civil action and an attorney general enforcement track with a civil penalty of up to $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use. It took effect August 1, 2026 and applies to causes of action accruing on or after that date (Minnesota HF 1606 — Prohibition on Nudification Technology (bill text, 2nd engrossment)).
The act is distinct from Minn. Stat. § 609.771, Minnesota's election-deepfake prohibition, which is treated at State Deepfake Statutes (MN, WA, TX, CA). Section 609.771 penalizes dissemination of a deepfake; HF 1606 reaches the tool that produces one, and attaches liability to the operator of the service rather than to the person who publishes the resulting image.
Status and timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2025-02-25 | Introduced, 94th Legislature |
| 2026-03-16 | First engrossment posted |
| 2026-04-07 | Second engrossment posted |
| 2026-04-28 | Passed the Minnesota House, reported vote 132–1 |
| 2026-05-08 | Second engrossment text posted to the Revisor's bill page |
| 2026-07-27 | xAI filed suit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison |
| 2026-08-01 | Effective date |
| 2026-08-17 | US Department of Justice filed a statement of interest |
The 132–1 House vote is reported in contemporaneous coverage (Source: cbsnews.com).
Scope and definitions
Subdivision 1 defines four terms. An identifiable individual is a person identifiable "from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image, or by another person," or "from personal information displayed in connection with the image." Intimate part takes the meaning given in Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 5. To nudify means a process by which an image or video "is altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual," where the result "is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual." Technical skill means "substantial application of individualized technological or artistic skill and judgment by a human creator in directing, shaping, or controlling the output" (Minnesota HF 1606 — Prohibition on Nudification Technology (bill text, 2nd engrossment)).
The technical-skill definition operates through the exemption in subdivision 3 rather than through the prohibition itself, and functions to separate general-purpose creative tools from services whose output requires no meaningful human direction.
Key provisions
Prohibition (subd. 2). A person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program, or other service must not allow a user to access, download, or use it to nudify an image or video, and must not nudify an image or video on behalf of a user. No person may advertise or promote any service that performs those actions.
Exemption (subd. 3). The prohibitions do not apply where the service "requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video."
Civil action (subd. 4). An individual depicted in an image or video nudified in violation of the section may bring a civil action in district court against the violator for compensatory damages including mental anguish or suffering, "in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained"; punitive damages; injunctive relief; reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements; and other relief the court deems just and equitable.
Penalties (subd. 5). The attorney general may enforce the section under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. In addition to other remedies, a violator is subject to a civil penalty "not to exceed $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use under subdivision 2." Recovered penalties are deposited in the general fund and, on July 1 each year, the prior year's accumulated balance is appropriated to the commissioner of public safety for the Office of Justice Programs to fund grants for direct services and advocacy for victims of sexual assault, general crime, domestic violence, and child abuse. The statute enumerates permitted uses — direct client assistance, competitive wages for direct service staff, hotel stays and housing supports, culturally responsive programming, prevention programming including domestic abuse transformation and restorative justice, and other organizational and survivor needs — and requires that funded services reach underserved communities most affected by violence. Up to five percent of the appropriation is available for grant administration.
Jurisdiction and venue (subd. 6). A court has jurisdiction where either the plaintiff or the defendant resides in Minnesota; an action may be filed in the county where the plaintiff resides.
Immunity (subd. 7). The section "does not alter or amend the liabilities and protections granted by United States Code, title 47, section 230, and shall be construed in a manner consistent with federal law." That construction clause is a drafting response to the Section 230 preemption problem described at Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230).
Litigation
xAI filed suit in federal court on July 27, 2026 against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, arguing that the statute "imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression." The complaint states that the company "does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent," but contends that the law "extends far beyond that goal" and exposes "a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions" (Source: cbsnews.com). The company also argued that "although Minnesota likely has a compelling interest in preventing individuals from creating nudes of other people without consent and distributing that content, the statute punishes AI platforms for assisting in the creation of a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to that limited goal" (Source: mprnews.org).
On August 17, 2026 the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest largely adopting xAI's argument. The department wrote that the statute "sweeps up constitutional and productive conduct" and gives platforms no opportunity to remove images before penalties attach, while stating that it supports Minnesota's interest in prohibiting AI-generated sexual abuse material (Source: politico.com).
The federal-government filing places the executive branch on the side of a First Amendment challenge to a state AI statute, a posture that also appears in the preemption material at State-Level AI Regulation. The challenge belongs to the same line of cases as xAI LLC v. Weiser (challenging the Colorado AI Act) and the design-code litigation at NetChoice v. Bonta (CAADCA litigation), and turns on the overbreadth and content-neutrality questions surveyed at Algorithmic Speech Doctrine.
Relationships
- related: State Deepfake Statutes (MN, WA, TX, CA)
- related: Synthetic Media / Deepfakes
- depends-on: Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230)
- related: Algorithmic Speech Doctrine
- related: xAI LLC v. Weiser (challenging the Colorado AI Act)
- depends-on: Minnesota HF 1606 — Prohibition on Nudification Technology (bill text, 2nd engrossment) — the bill text
- related: NetChoice v. Bonta (CAADCA litigation)
- regulated-by: xAI
Open questions
- Whether the technical-skill exemption in subdivision 3 removes general-purpose image models from the prohibition's reach has not been construed by a court.
- Whether the per-access penalty structure aggregates across a single user session or a single image has not been addressed.