Minnesota AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Minnesota regulates AI through two enacted statutes and a broad consumer privacy law. Minn. Stat. 609.771 criminalizes election-related deepfakes disseminated once absentee voting has begun or within 90 days before a political party nominating convention, and Minn. Stat. 604.32 creates a civil cause of action for non-consensual intimate deepfakes. The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act adds automated profiling rights effective July 31, 2025.

Minnesota has established itself as a national leader in AI regulation, becoming one of the first states to pass comprehensive deepfake legislation in 2023 and introducing an ambitious slate of AI bills during its 2025-2026 legislative biennium, though none of the 2026-session AI bills passed before the Legislature adjourned on May 18, 2026. The state combines strong enacted laws on deepfakes and data privacy with an active pipeline of proposed legislation targeting AI in employment, healthcare, consumer protection, and child safety.

This guide covers every enacted law, executive action, and pending bill that affects how AI is developed, deployed, and used in Minnesota as of March 2026.

Enacted Minnesota AI Laws

Deepfake Criminal Law: Minn. Stat. 609.771 (Effective August 1, 2023)

Minnesota was among the earliest states to criminalize the use of deepfakes. The law, which took effect on August 1, 2023, targets two categories of harmful deepfakes: those used to interfere with elections and those depicting non-consensual intimate content.

The statute defines a "deep fake" as any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct, and whose production was substantially dependent upon technical means rather than another individual's ability to physically or verbally impersonate the depicted person.

Election Deepfake Provisions

Under Section 609.771, it is a crime to disseminate or enter into an agreement to disseminate a deepfake if the disseminator "knows or acts with reckless disregard about whether the item being disseminated is a deep fake," the dissemination is made without the consent of the depicted person, and it is made with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election.

Note that the mental state is recklessness, not negligence. A disseminator who merely should have suspected the item was fabricated does not meet the standard; the statute requires actual knowledge or reckless disregard.

The dissemination must also fall inside the statute's timing window. Under the current text, that window is "within 90 days before a political party nominating convention," or "after the start of the absentee voting period prior to a presidential nomination primary, or a regular or special state or local primary or general election." Conduct outside those windows is not reached by this criminal statute.

The Minnesota Attorney General, county or city attorneys, depicted individuals, or candidates who are or are likely to be harmed by the deepfake's distribution can ask a court to intervene.

2024 Amendments to the Election Deepfake Law

In 2024, the Minnesota Legislature amended Section 609.771 with changes taking effect on July 1, 2024. The amendments replaced the original flat "within 90 days before an election" window with the two-part trigger described above. The 90-day period now attaches only to a political party nominating convention. For a presidential nomination primary or a regular or special state or local primary or general election, the clock instead starts when the absentee voting period opens. The Minnesota Secretary of State published a detailed overview of the updated requirements for candidates and campaigns.

A critical addition in the 2024 amendments addresses candidates directly. When a candidate is convicted under the section, the court enters a supplemental judgment declaring forfeiture of the candidate's nomination or office under Minn. Stat. 211B.17, and disqualifying the candidate from being appointed to fill that office or any other office under Minn. Stat. 211B.18. Neither consequence appeared in the 2023 version of the statute. This raises the stakes significantly for political actors who might consider using AI-generated deceptive content.

Criminal Penalties for Election Deepfakes

A candidate convicted under the section faces two additional consequences that are not fines or prison time: forfeiture of the nomination or office under Minn. Stat. 211B.17, and disqualification from being appointed to fill that office or any other office under Minn. Stat. 211B.18.

X Corp. Lawsuit Challenging the Law

On April 23, 2025, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Keith Ellison, alleging that Section 609.771 violates the First Amendment by curbing free speech and risks censoring political discourse. X Corp. argues the law is overbroad, vague, and a content-based restriction that infringes on editorial discretion.

In the case (X Corp. v. Ellison, D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-01649), the court denied X Corp.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings on its Section 230 claim on December 2, 2025; after a stay was lifted in August 2026, the case is proceeding toward the merits with a pretrial conference set for late September 2026.

A separate challenge to the same law, Kohls v. Ellison, was brought by content creator Christopher Kohls and state legislator Mary Franson. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed that denial on February 9, 2026, finding that Kohls's parody-labeled videos did not qualify as deepfakes under the statute and that Franson's 16-month filing delay justified denying her preliminary relief. That case continues on the merits, and the outcome of either case could have implications for deepfake laws in other states.

Civil Action for Intimate Deepfakes: Minn. Stat. 604.32

Minnesota's Section 604.32 creates a civil cause of action against any person who disseminates an intimate deepfake without the depicted individual's consent. This civil remedy runs alongside a separate criminal statute covering the same conduct, Minn. Stat. 617.262, so a victim of an intimate deepfake can pursue a private lawsuit, a criminal referral, or both.

What the Law Covers

A civil action exists when a person disseminates a deepfake with knowledge that the depicted individual did not consent, and the deepfake realistically depicts the intimate parts of another individual or artificially generated intimate parts presented as belonging to the depicted individual, or depicts the individual engaging in a sexual act.

Critically, the law states that consent to creating a deepfake does not constitute consent to its distribution. This closes a potential loophole that could otherwise protect distributors who obtain a deepfake from a consenting creator.

Civil Remedies and Damages

Criminal Liability for Intimate Deepfakes: Minn. Stat. 617.262

Election interference is not the only deepfake conduct Minnesota punishes criminally. Section 617.262, titled "Nonconsensual Dissemination of a Deep Fake Depicting Intimate Parts or Sexual Acts," makes it a crime to intentionally disseminate a deepfake when the actor knows or reasonably should know that the depicted individual did not consent to the dissemination, the deepfake realistically depicts intimate parts or a sexual act, and the depicted individual is identifiable from the deepfake itself or from personal information displayed with it.

Penalties Under Section 617.262

A violation is a gross misdemeanor. The penalty rises to imprisonment for not more than three years, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, when an aggravating factor is present. Those factors include:

• The depicted individual suffers financial loss
• The actor disseminates the deepfake for profit
• The actor maintains a website for the purpose of disseminating such deepfakes
• The actor posts the deepfake on a website
• The actor acts with intent to harass the depicted individual
• The actor obtained the deepfake through theft or a related crime
• The actor has a prior conviction under this section

This matters for anyone assessing exposure: the same intimate deepfake can trigger civil liability under Section 604.32 and a separate criminal charge under Section 617.262.

Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act and AI (Effective July 31, 2025)

The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), codified at Chapter 325M, took effect on July 31, 2025, and includes some of the strongest AI-related provisions of any state data privacy law in the country. Nonprofit corporations and postsecondary institutions have until July 31, 2029, to comply.

AI and Automated Decision-Making Provisions

The MCDPA grants consumers whose data is subject to automated decision-making with significant legal or similar effects the right to be informed of the reason profiling resulted in a particular decision, along with guidance on actions they may take to secure a different outcome.

The law includes a unique provision granting consumers the right to question the results of "profiling" that scores individuals based on personal data to make automated decisions affecting access to jobs, housing, education, insurance, or other essential services. This right applies regardless of whether artificial intelligence is specifically used in the profiling process, capturing a broad range of automated decision systems.

Enforcement and Penalties

Until January 31, 2026, the Attorney General was required to issue a cure notice and allow 30 days for correction before initiating enforcement. After that date, the Attorney General has full enforcement authority. Violations are subject to civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation.

AI Bills Introduced in the 94th Legislature (2025-2026)

Minnesota has had one of the most ambitious AI legislative agendas in the country. Senator Erin Maye Quade (DFL-Apple Valley) and Senator Eric Lucero (R-St. Michael) led a bipartisan effort to regulate AI with a sweeping slate of bills introduced during the session. The Minnesota Legislature adjourned sine die on May 18, 2026, and none of the bills below passed; each would need to be reintroduced in a future session to become law.

RAISE Act: Frontier AI Model Safety (SF 4509)

Senate File 4509, the Responsible Artificial Intelligence Safety and Education Act, targets frontier-scale AI models. The bill would require AI developers to implement safety and security protocols, including documented technical and organizational procedures that reduce the risk of critical harm. Key provisions include:

• Requiring developers to maintain and publish safety and security protocols
• Establishing standards for harmful conduct that, without meaningful human intervention, would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence
• Providing civil remedies for violations
• Mandating cybersecurity protections for AI models

AI Worker Displacement Protections (HF 4369)

House File 4369 would require employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide notice and a transitional employment period when workers are displaced by AI. This is one of the most worker-protective AI proposals in the country.

Key provisions include:

• A 90-day transitional employment period from the date notice is provided
• Employers must offer affected employees participation in retraining or reskilling programs at the employer's expense
• Employers cannot discharge an employee during the transitional period except for just cause
• Employers who violate the requirements become ineligible for state grants, loans, or tax incentives for five years
• The Commissioner of Labor and Industry must maintain a public registry of violating employers

The bill defines "employment loss" broadly to include termination, layoffs exceeding six months, reduction in work hours of 50 percent or more, or conversion of a human-performed function to an automated function.

Healthcare AI Restrictions

SF 1856: Ban on AI in Utilization Review. Senate File 1856, introduced by Senator Maye Quade on February 24, 2025, would prohibit the use of artificial intelligence in any part of a utilization review organization's review, evaluation, determination, or appeals processes. The companion bill is HF 1838.

SF 4280/HF 3893: AI in Psychotherapy. These companion bills would regulate the use of AI in psychotherapy sessions, adding Minnesota to a growing number of states imposing restrictions on AI in mental health settings.

Consumer Protection Bills

SF 1886: AI Disclosure and Human Alternative. Senate File 1886 would require businesses using AI to provide individuals with the option to communicate with an actual human instead of a computer. The bill would also make it an unfair or deceptive trade practice when a person fails to disclose that an individual is communicating with AI that engages in a textual or verbal conversation.

HF 4131: Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination. House File 4131 would prohibit the use of automated decision systems that result in surveillance-based wage or price discrimination. The bill requires that a person using an automated decision system to set wages or prices must publish reasonable procedures allowing consumers or workers to challenge the accuracy of data considered by the system. This section would be effective August 1, 2026.

Children and AI Safety

SF 1857: Banning Minors from AI Chatbots. This bill would require companies that create AI chatbots to ensure that minors under 18 cannot access them. If passed, it would be one of the most restrictive child AI safety laws in the country.

Employment AI Regulation

HF 4445: Automated Decision Systems in Employment. This bill relates to employment and would regulate the use of automated decision systems in employment contexts, adding further protections for workers beyond the displacement protections in HF 4369.

Minnesota's Technology Advisory Council

Minnesota's Technology Advisory Council includes an Artificial Intelligence subcommittee that advises the state on AI governance and implementation. Through monthly meetings, the council has advanced initiatives addressing the state's technology needs, including AI adoption, data sharing, and privacy governance.

In 2024, the council formed a data-sharing workgroup to identify opportunities for secure, efficient data sharing while addressing governance and privacy challenges related to AI adoption. The workgroup is advancing toward becoming a formal subcommittee in 2025, strengthening its role in supporting interagency AI collaboration.

Federal AI Policy Impact on Minnesota

Minnesota's deepfake law has become a flashpoint in the national debate over federal versus state AI regulation. The X Corp. lawsuit raises questions about whether federal law, specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, preempts state deepfake regulations.

A December 2025 White House executive order on national AI policy framework has raised concerns about potential federal preemption of state AI laws. This could affect Minnesota's enacted deepfake statutes and pending bills if federal standards are established that conflict with or supersede state-level regulation.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act supplements Minnesota's existing intimate deepfake protections by adding a national prohibition on nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated content.

More Minnesota Laws

Looking for information on other Minnesota laws? Visit our AI Laws by State hub to compare Minnesota with other states. You can also explore related topics:

• Minnesota Surveillance Camera Laws for monitoring and recording rules
• Minnesota Background Check Laws for employment screening regulations
• Minnesota Recording Laws for wiretap and consent rules

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI laws and regulations are evolving rapidly, and enforcement interpretations change over time. Consult a licensed attorney in Minnesota for advice about your specific situation. Last reviewed: March 2026.