FILE PHOTO: A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the X logo are seen in this illustration taken January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -Elon Musk's social media platform X sued Minnesota on Wednesday over a state law that bans people from using AI-generated "deepfakes" to influence an election, which the company said violated protections of free speech.
The law replaces social media platforms' judgment about the content with the judgment of the state and threatens criminal liability if the platforms get it wrong, according to the lawsuit that was filed in Minnesota federal court.
"This system will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary," X said in its complaint. Musk has described himself as a free speech absolutist and he did away with Twitter's content moderation policy when he bought the company in 2022 and renamed it X.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the named defendant, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Minnesota's law bans the use of deepfakes – videos, pictures or audio clips made with AI to look real – to influence an election. At least 22 states have enacted some form of prohibition on the use of deepfakes in elections, according to data compiled by Public Citizen, which says that AI can be used to manipulate voters.
X asked the federal judge to declare the law violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Minnesota's constitution and that it was impermissibly vague. It also wants the judge to find the law is precluded by what is known as Section 230, a federal law that protects social media companies from being held liable for content posted by users. The company wants a permanent injunction preventing the law from being enforced.
The Minnesota law has already been challenged on similar grounds by a Republican state lawmaker Mary Franson and social media influencer Christopher Kohls. In January, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino rejected their bid for a preliminary injunction to block the law, which they appealed. Provinzino's ruling did not address the merits of the lawsuit.
(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, DelawareEditing by Marguerita Choy)
