XAI has told a California federal judge that the state had fallen short of its obligations to inform the court and the company if it planned to institute any enforcement actions when responding to a court order, with xAI reiterating its request for the court to block a law that would require data used to train artificial intelligence be disclosed.

The state's refusal to say whether the AI company's current disclosures had satisfied the state showed how the disclosure law is unconstitutionally vague, xAI said in a Monday brief.

The company had asked the court for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Assembly Bill 2013 in January, saying the law would force companies to reveal trade secrets to competitors.

At a Feb. 23 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ordered California to file a statement as to whether it had any current intention to institute an enforcement action against xAI based on disclosures it had already made.

The state responded on Feb. 27 that it "cannot comment on whether or when the Attorney General intends to pursue specific enforcement actions."

On Monday, xAI cited the 2025 Ninth Circuit case Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, which found that the "failure to disavow enforcement is sufficient to establish a credible threat of prosecution." The state, xAI argued, was trying to preserve its ability to bring an enforcement action.

"What is more, the state's refusal to say whether xAI's disclosures satisfy xAI's obligations under A.B. 2013 underscores that the statute is unconstitutionally vague," the brief said. "If the state is unwilling (or unable) to say what its own statute requires, it is hard to see how parties regulated by the statute are supposed to make that determination."

The state was saying that it can be vague about what its law requires and receive the authority to bring enforcement actions if it later decides parties did not comply, xAI said.

But that position leads to the sort of arbitrary enforcement, particularly against companies with "disfavored viewpoints," prohibited by the due process clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, xAI said.

Counsel for xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did a representative for the California Attorney General's Office.

XAI is represented by Erin Murphy, Ilan Posner, James Xi, Matthew Rowen and Mitchell Pallaki of Clement & Murphy PLLC and Adam Sieff of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The state is represented by Joseph Meeker and Kristin Liska of the California Office of the Attorney General.

The case is X.AI LLC v. Bonta, case number 2:25-cv-12295 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.