• by Wendy Davis , 82 minutes ago

A federal judge has narrowed Elon Musk's X Corp's challenge to a Minnesota law that criminalizes some "deep fakes" relating to elections.

In a ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Provinzino threw out X's claim that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act overrides the state law. That ruling didn't address X's claim that the law also violates the First Amendment.

The Minnesota law, passed in 2023 and amended last year, makes it a crime to share a “deep fake” within 90 days of an election or primary convention, if whoever shared the material knew it was a "deep fake" and intended to harm a candidate's reputation or influence the election.

Earlier this year, X sued to block the law -- claiming both that it's unconstitutional and is inconsistent with Section 230, which protects interactive platforms from liability for content posted by users.

In August, X filed a motion seeking a judicial declaration that the law violates provision Section 230.

Provinzino rejected that argument Tuesday, ruling that X lacked "standing" to raise that claim because it hadn't put forward evidence that it was likely to violate the statute by knowingly distributing deep fakes with an intent to influence an election.

The written papers "do not demonstrate that X Corp. ever disseminates deepfakes with the specific intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election," Provinzino wrote, adding that the company's lawyer "admitted as much at oral argument."

She added that X's papers indicate that the company "is agnostic about a user's motivation for disseminating the deepfake."

"X Corp. alleges that it largely plays an uninvolved, backseat role when it comes to addressing deepfakes, instead ceding content moderation to X users who can offer Community Notes, comments, and replies to clarify potentially deceptive AI-generated media," she added.

Musk isn't the only one seeking to strike down the law. Last year, social media influencer Christopher Kohls and state lawmaker Mary Franson also sought an injunction blocking enforcement on First Amendment grounds.

In January, Provinzino rejected their request for an injunction.

She ruled that Kohls lacked “standing” because his content was labeled as parody and therefore wouldn't deceive anyone, and that Franson waited too long after the law took effect to seek an injunction.

Kohls and Franson are appealing that ruling to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.