A courtroom battle currently being waged between the social media platform X and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stands as proof of how generative AI is changing so many aspects of daily life. Under attack is a Minnesota law banning the dissemination of “deepfake” political videos within 90 days of a political party’s nominating convention or during the voting period before an election. While the fight is ongoing, at least one part of X’s complaint has been settled after U.S. District Court Judge Laura Provinzino ruled on December 2, 2025, that the social media company lacks Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge against the Minnesota statute under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The fight over the legality of Minnesota’s ban on political deepfakes created by artificial intelligence (AI) from being spread over social media is not over quite yet. While X Corp’s Fourteenth Amendment violation claim against the state law was dismissed, the challenge on First Amendment free speech grounds is still very much alive, albeit stayed pending further court action. X might not face criminal liability for what AI-generated deepfake videos its users post, but it appears determined to defend their right to share them on its platform.
AI Videos Are Improving Steadily
As generative AI continues to push the envelope on what it can do, the use of deepfake technology to create fictional videos has become increasingly problematic. Some efforts are easily discernible as fake, but that is getting harder by the day. With the ability of some AI-generated content to produce misinformation, Minnesota lawmakers took steps in 2023 to forestall deepfakes from affecting the result of an election.
Section 609.771 of the Minnesota statutes, otherwise known as the “Minnesota Deepfake Law,” makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly disseminate a deepfake technological representation with reckless disregard about a political candidate either within 90 days of that candidate’s nomination convention or after the beginning of the absentee voting period in an election. It allows the attorney general, county attorneys, city attorneys, the subject of the deepfake footage, and candidates who would suffer injury from the dissemination of the misinformation to use a cause of action to obtain injunctive relief.
A first-time violator faces up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Subsequent offenses committed within five years of a prior conviction each carry up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. A violation that carries the intent to cause bodily harm or inflict violence is punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $3,000, or both.
Attempting to Create Order From Chaos
Under Section 230 provisions, social media platforms don’t carry liability for content posted by users that doesn’t violate federal laws. Sites can choose to set Terms of Service (TOS) and police visitors as they choose, but they aren’t obligated to do so. Under owner Elon Musk’s stewardship, X has rolled back many of the TOS guardrails it previously had in place, taking a fairly “hands-off” approach to content moderation. Users disseminating disinformation about political speech and candidates may face charges under Minnesota’s deepfake law, but not the platform itself.
That didn’t stop X from becoming plaintiffs in federal court against the law. In addition to First Amendment rights violations, the suit claimed that X would suffer injury by Minnesota’s law preempting Section 230. Judge Provinzino disagreed, ruling that X showed no instances where it had suffered injury under the law, nor was X likely to act in reckless disregard to either disseminate deepfakes or influence the results of an election. Since X lacked Article III standing, Judge Provinzino dismissed the cause claiming injury under the Fourteenth Amendment.
X’s suit may continue on First Amendment merits. Judge Provinzino dismissed a similar First Amendment claim in January 2025 by a social media influencer who creates parodies and a state lawmaker to strike down the law. Ruling that the works were obviously parodies and wouldn’t be misconstrued as authentic, her decision determined that he lacked standing. It’s currently being appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Related Resources
- What Is Standing To Sue? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Deepfake Dilemma: What Are Lawyers Doing About AI Rip-Offs? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Ninth Circuit Sides Against Binding Arbitration Against Non-Obvious Terms of Service on Website (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
