xAI filed its 9th Circuit opening brief May 15 seeking to block California's AB 2013, which requires AI developers to disclose training-data summaries, on First and Fifth Amendment grounds.
Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI, filed its opening brief in the Ninth Circuit on May 15, asking the appeals court to reverse a federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against California Assembly Bill 2013, a state law requiring AI developers to publish summaries of the data used to train their models [1]. The brief argued that the district court's reasoning was fundamentally flawed and that the law unconstitutionally compels companies to disclose proprietary training-data information [1].
The case, X.AI LLC v. Bonta, pits xAI against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office defends the statute [2]. The district court had previously declined to enjoin AB 2013, finding that xAI had not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits required for preliminary relief. xAI's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seated in San Francisco, challenges that conclusion directly, contending the lower court misapplied both First Amendment and Fifth Amendment doctrine [1] [2].
The substantive stakes center on two constitutional theories. Under the First Amendment, xAI argues that compelling disclosure of training-data summaries is compelled commercial speech that does not survive applicable scrutiny, because the government has not shown the mandate is reasonably related to a substantial interest without burdening more information than necessary [2]. Under the Fifth Amendment, xAI contends the disclosure regime effects an unconstitutional taking of trade secrets, given that training datasets represent core proprietary assets whose public exposure would cause competitive harm that no government benefit can offset [1]. AB 2013 was designed to give the public and researchers insight into what information powers large generative AI systems, a transparency interest California legislators framed as consumer protection [2].
The Ninth Circuit's ruling will carry substantial weight beyond this single company. Every major generative AI developer operating in California faces potential exposure under AB 2013, and dozens of analogous disclosure bills are pending in other states [2]. A decision endorsing xAI's constitutional framework could effectively foreclose an entire category of AI-regulation legislation nationwide, while a ruling sustaining the law would provide a template for state legislatures to model future transparency mandates. Either outcome is likely to generate petition activity at the Supreme Court.
No argument date has been set. Bonta's office will file its response brief under the court's standard appellate briefing schedule [1].
—