Minnesota AI Legislation in 2026

The Minnesota Picture

Minnesota occupies a distinctive position in the US state AI landscape. Rather than waiting for a comprehensive AI statute, the state moved early and aggressively against specific, concrete harms. In 2023, well ahead of most peer states, Minnesota criminalized the use of deep fake technology to influence elections under Minn. Stat. 609.771 and created criminal and civil liability for nonconsensual deepfake intimate imagery under Minn. Stat. 617.262 and 604.32. This harm-first, criminal-law posture is the defining feature of Minnesota's approach. The state legislated against deepfakes as conduct that injures individuals and democratic institutions, not as a technology category to be broadly licensed or audited.

The second pillar is the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, in effect since July 31, 2025. While framed as a privacy law, the Act carries some of the most consequential AI governance provisions in any state code. Minnesota gives consumers an explicit right to question the outcome of profiling and automated decisions that carry legal or similarly significant effects, to receive an explanation, to learn what would change the result, and to demand reevaluation where inaccurate data drove the decision. For any organization deploying automated decisioning in housing, insurance, lending, employment, education, or healthcare touching Minnesota residents, this is the operative AI compliance regime today, and it is more demanding than the equivalent language in most other state privacy statutes.

I want to be precise about what is settled versus what is still in motion. The deepfake statutes and the Consumer Data Privacy Act are enacted, in force, and enforceable. The election deepfake law is being litigated, most visibly in X Corp. v. Ellison, but as of June 2026 no court has enjoined it, so builders should treat it as live law. The 2026 legislative package, including the headline SF 1857 ban on minors' access to companion chatbots and the AI-disclosure proposals, is pending and has not been enacted. These are signals of legislative direction, not current obligations.

For builders, the practical mandate is threefold. First, if your product can generate or distribute synthetic media, build consent and provenance controls now, because Minnesota already attaches criminal exposure to election and intimate-image deepfakes. Second, if you make or assist automated decisions about Minnesotans in significant life domains, you must be able to explain those decisions, surface the data behind them, and support contestation and reevaluation under the Consumer Data Privacy Act. Third, watch the 2026 session closely, particularly around AI interaction disclosure and protections for minors, and design for those expectations early rather than retrofitting under deadline.