AI Regulation Tracker / Platform liability and image abuse
Minnesota Bans AI Nudify Platforms, Effective August 1
Minnesota signed HF1606 into law on May 7, 2026, adding a new statute, Minn. Stat. 325E.91, that bans operating or advertising an AI service that "nudifies" a real person's image without consent. It takes effect August 1, 2026. Victims can sue directly, and the attorney general can seek civil penalties of up to $500,000 for each unlawful use. This is the first state law in the country to put the liability on the platform, not just the person who made the image.
Most laws aimed at non-consensual explicit images go after the person who made or shared the image. Minnesota took a different route. HF1606 puts the duty on the service that makes the abuse possible. If you own or control an app that can strip the clothes off a real person's photo, the statute reaches you directly, whether or not you ever touch the resulting image yourself.
I want to be precise about timing, because it matters for anyone deciding what to do this month. This is not a proposal. The House passed it on April 23, the Senate on April 30, and the governor signed it on May 7, 2026. It is on the books as Minn. Stat. 325E.91, and it is effective August 1, 2026, applying to causes of action that accrue on or after that date. So the window to get in front of it is measured in days, not sessions.
What the statute actually prohibits
The core ban sits in subdivision 2. In the words of the statute, "A person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program, or other service must not: (1) allow a user to access, download, or use the website, application, software, program, or other service to nudify an image or video; or (2) nudify an image or video on behalf of a user." A separate clause adds that "No person may advertise or promote any website, application, software, program, or other service that performs" those actions.
Two things stand out. First, the prohibition is written around the operator, not the end user who uploads a photo. Second, advertising the service is its own violation. You do not have to run the tool to be exposed; promoting one is enough.
The statute defines "nudify" narrowly and around real, identifiable people. It 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," and where the result "is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual." There is a carve-out in subdivision 3: the prohibitions do not apply when the service "requires the technical skill of a user," defined as substantial application of individualized technological or artistic skill and judgment by a human creator. In plain terms, a one-click undress tool is squarely covered; a general creative program that demands real human skill is treated differently.
Two enforcement tracks, and real money
The law comes with private and public enforcement running in parallel.
On the private side, subdivision 4 gives a depicted person a civil action in district court. They can seek compensatory damages, including for mental anguish, "in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained," plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. A suit can be filed where the plaintiff resides.
On the public side, subdivision 5 lets the attorney general enforce the section under Minnesota's general enforcement statute. The number is the headline: "a person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use." Because the penalty attaches per unlawful use, exposure scales with volume. Penalties collected go to the general fund and are then directed to the Office of Justice Programs for victim services.
One important limit for operators to note honestly: subdivision 7 says the section "does not alter or amend the liabilities and protections granted by United States Code, title 47, section 230," and is to be read consistently with federal law. That is the Section 230 question, and it is exactly the ground on which platform-liability laws get tested. Do not assume the reference resolves the issue in either direction; it flags where the fight will be.
Why the platform-liability framing is the story
Minnesota is being described as the first state in the country to ban the nudification platforms themselves rather than only the images they produce. That framing is what makes this worth reading even if you have no operations in the state. The bill passed the House 132 to 1 and cleared the Senate unanimously, which tells you how little political resistance this model met. When a template like this passes that lopsidedly, other states copy the text, and vendors end up complying nationally rather than mapping the law state by state.
The practical reach is wider than "Minnesota companies." The statute is built around an identifiable Minnesota victim and a service that a user can access. Subdivision 6 gives Minnesota courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff or the defendant resides in the state. An AI image tool hosted anywhere, if a Minnesota resident can reach it and is depicted, is inside the exposure zone. That is the durable lesson for anyone running or advising an image-generation product.
What operators and their counsel should do before August 1
If you build, host, or advertise AI image or video tools, treat this as a near-term compliance item, not a watch-list entry.
First, figure out whether your product can produce the covered output at all. The definition turns on generating a realistic intimate part on an identifiable real person who was clothed in the source. If your tool can be prompted to do that, you are in scope, and the technical-skill exemption is a fact question you should be able to answer, not assume.
Second, look at your guardrails and your marketing in the same pass. The advertising ban means promotional copy, affiliate arrangements, and app-store listings are their own liability surface. A tool that blocks the output but is marketed on the promise of it is still a problem.
Third, map your Minnesota exposure the way the statute does, by user reach and victim residence, not by where your servers sit. Then take the Section 230 question to counsel deliberately. Subdivision 7 preserves that defense on its face, but it is the contested part of every platform-liability law, and you want a real read before you rely on it.
Questions professionals are asking
Is HF1606 actually law, or still a bill?
It is law. The Minnesota House passed it on April 23, 2026, the Senate on April 30, and the governor signed it on May 7, 2026. It is codified at Minn. Stat. 325E.91 and takes effect August 1, 2026 for causes of action accruing on or after that date.
Who is liable, the user or the platform?
The platform. The prohibition is written around "a person who owns or controls" the website, application, software, program, or other service. Allowing a user to nudify an image, doing it on their behalf, or advertising such a service are all violations by the operator.
What are the penalties?
A depicted person can sue for compensatory damages up to three times actual damages, plus punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Separately, the attorney general can seek a civil penalty of up to $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use.
Does it reach companies based outside Minnesota?
It can. The statute is built around an identifiable Minnesota victim and a service a user can access, and it gives Minnesota courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff or defendant resides in the state. An AI image tool reachable by a Minnesota resident who is depicted is within the exposure zone regardless of where it is hosted.
What about Section 230?
Subdivision 7 states the law does not alter the liabilities and protections under 47 U.S.C. 230 and is to be construed consistently with federal law. That preserves the defense on its face, but the interaction between state platform-liability statutes and Section 230 is contested and should be assessed with counsel, not assumed.
RELATED BRIEFINGS
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how Minn. Stat. 325E.91 applies to your product, your marketing, and your Section 230 posture with qualified counsel.