(X.AI LLC v. Philip J. Weiser, No. 26-1515, D. Colo.)
(Complaint available. Document #46-260506-030C.)
Grok has been developed “to answer only evidence and reason, without regard to political correctness, ideological biases, or anything that might distort objective truth,” xAI writes in its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. CAIA will “force xAI to abandon its disinterested pursuit of truth and instead promote the State’s ideological views on various matters, racial justice in particular,” xAI alleges.
The complaint seeks to enjoin the enforcement and implementation of CAIA, Colorado Senate Bill 24-205, which was signed into law in May 2024 and was originally set to take effect in February 2026.
The law has been described by the National Association of Attorneys General as “including a new general duty of care for developers and deployers of AI to protect individuals from algorithmic discrimination—which Colorado defines as any differential ‘treatment or impact’ resulting from the use of an artificial intelligence system—on the basis of protected characteristics. . . . The CAIA affects predictive artificial intelligence systems which make decisions, not newer generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT which create content.”
However, xAI alleges in its complaint that the Colorado law “promotes a form of ‘differential treatment’ the State favors—discrimination intended to ‘increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.’”
Constitutional Violations
CAIA violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. I, and is “unconstitutionally vague” as “[i]t fails to adequately define essential terms such as ‘high-risk artificial intelligence system,’ ‘algorithmic discrimination,’ and ‘historical discrimination,’” xAI alleges.
With the authority to enforce the law exclusively left to the Colorado attorney general, the “vagueness invites arbitrary enforcement,” xAI argues.
In the complaint against Attorney General Philip J. Weiser, xAI brings claims for declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for violations of the First Amendment; declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for extraterritorial regulation in violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and the horizontal separation of powers, U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 3; declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for the unlawful imposition of an undue burden on interstate commerce; declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for vagueness in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); and declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
The requested relief also includes judgment declaring that CAIA “unconstitutionally compels xAI’s speech in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” “constitutes an impermissible extraterritorial regulation,” “imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce,” “is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution” and “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
In addition, xAI asks the court to permanently enjoin Weiser and his officers, agents and employees from enforcing the CAIA against it and seeks attorney fees and costs and other relief.
XAI is represented by Frederick R. Yarger and William D. Hauptman of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP in Denver and James Burnham in Washington, D.C., Adam Mehes and Argirios J. Nickas in New York and Reid Coleman in Bastrop, Texas, all of X.AI.