Alabama AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Alabama regulates AI through targeted legislation rather than a comprehensive statute. The state's primary AI law, HB 172 (Ala. Code § 17-5-16.1), criminalizes election-related deepfakes effective October 1, 2024. Governor Ivey's Executive Order 738 created a Generative AI Task Force, and the 2026 legislative session enacted a new health insurance AI oversight law (SB 63, now Act 2026-589) along with other AI-related bills.

Overview of Alabama AI Laws

Alabama does not yet have a single, comprehensive artificial intelligence law. However, the state has taken meaningful steps toward regulating AI through executive action, targeted legislation, and active legislative proposals during the 2026 session.

The state's approach to AI regulation has been shaped by two major forces. First, Governor Kay Ivey's 2024 executive order established a formal task force to study AI use in state government. Second, the growing national concern over deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation prompted the legislature to pass Alabama's first AI-specific criminal statute in 2024.

Alabama's 2026 regular session adjourned on March 27, 2026. It saw multiple AI-related bills introduced, addressing topics ranging from healthcare coverage determinations to AI content labeling and child safety. Two of them were enacted and two died in committee.

This article covers Alabama's enacted AI statutes, the AI bills of the 2026 regular session, the state's executive actions on AI, and how federal AI policy affects the state's regulatory landscape. This information is current as of September 2026. Act 2026-589 takes effect October 1, 2026. You should consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Alabama's Deepfake Law: HB 172

Alabama's most significant AI legislation to date is House Bill 172, which was signed into law on May 16, 2024, and took effect on October 1, 2024. The law specifically targets AI-generated deepfakes used to influence elections.

What the Law Prohibits

Under Ala. Code § 17-5-16.1, a person may not distribute, or enter into an agreement with another person to distribute, materially deceptive media if all four of the following apply:

1. The person knows the media falsely represents a depicted individual.
2. The distribution occurs within 90 days before an election.
3. The person intends the distribution to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in the coming election, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result.
4. The person intends the distribution to change the voting patterns of electors in the coming election by deceiving them into incorrectly believing the depicted individual actually engaged in the speech or conduct depicted, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result.

The elements are conjunctive, not alternative. Intent alone does not complete the offense: elements (3) and (4) each add an objective requirement that the distribution be reasonably likely to cause the result the distributor intended. The statute also reaches only distribution, and agreements to distribute. Creating the media, without more, is not an offense under this section.

The law defines "materially deceptive media" as an image, audio, or video meeting all three of these requirements: it falsely depicts an individual engaging in speech or conduct the person did not in fact engage in, a reasonable viewer or listener would incorrectly believe the depicted individual engaged in it, and the media was produced by artificial intelligence.

Criminal Penalties

The statute fixes the felony class itself: a second or subsequent conviction within five years is a Class D felony. The sentencing range for a Class D felony comes from Ala. Code § 13A-5-6(a)(4), which sets it at not more than five years and not less than one year and one day, and the fine ceiling from Ala. Code § 13A-5-11(a)(4), which caps it at $7,500.

Exemptions and Defenses

The law includes two important exemptions. First, if deceptive media includes a clear and conspicuous disclaimer stating that the content has been technologically manipulated, it does not violate the statute. Second, satire or parody is excluded from the law's scope, but only when the parody is substantially dependent on a human performer's ability to impersonate the candidate physically or verbally, and not on technology or artificial intelligence -- meaning AI-generated content billed as parody is not automatically covered by this exemption.

Civil Remedies

In addition to criminal penalties, HB 172 allows a depicted individual, along with the Attorney General, an injured candidate, or an entity representing deceived voters, to seek permanent injunctive relief against a person who violates the law. A plaintiff other than the Attorney General who wins that relief may also be awarded costs and attorney fees, though the statute does not create a separate damages claim.

Alabama Council on Advanced Technology and Artificial Intelligence

Alabama's AI governance apparatus did not begin with the Governor's 2024 task force. Three years earlier the Legislature created a permanent statutory body, the Alabama Council on Advanced Technology and Artificial Intelligence, codified at Ala. Code § 41-9-1100 and enacted as Act 2021-344 (SB 78), approved May 6, 2021.

The council's charge is broad. By statute it reviews and advises the Governor and the Legislature on all aspects of the use and development of advanced technology and artificial intelligence in the state.

It has 22 members: 14 appointed by the Governor, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Information Technology, two appointed by the Lieutenant Governor (at least one of whom must come from an Alabama public community college or four-year public institution), two members of the House appointed by the Speaker, and two Senators appointed by the President Pro Tempore. Every appointee other than the legislators must have expertise in artificial intelligence, workforce development, technology, ethics, privacy, or computer science.

The council must meet at least twice a year and must submit an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature carrying any recommendations for administrative or policy action on advanced technology and artificial intelligence. That report must be posted on the websites of the Governor's office, the Legislature, and the Department of Commerce.

The distinction matters when you are reading about Alabama AI policy. The task force below was created by executive order and finished its work with a final report. The council is a standing creature of statute and remains on the books.

Executive Order 738: Alabama's AI Task Force

On February 8, 2024, Governor Kay Ivey signed Executive Order 738, establishing the Alabama Generative Artificial Intelligence Task Force. This order represented one of the state's first formal actions to address AI governance.

Task Force Composition

The task force consists of 13 members, including seven cabinet members, two representatives from Alabama higher education institutions, and four legislators (two state representatives and two state senators). Secretary Daniel Urquhart from the Office of Information Technology serves as chair.

Mandate and Timeline

The executive order required each state executive-branch agency to submit an inventory report of all GenAI use by May 1, 2024. The task force was charged with understanding current AI use in government, encouraging responsible adoption, and recommending policies for future use.

Over the course of 2024, the task force held four official meetings and twenty additional working group meetings, culminating in a final report submitted on November 30, 2024.

Key Findings

The task force report revealed that nearly 25% of Alabama state agencies were already using generative AI in some capacity. This finding highlighted the urgency of establishing clear governance frameworks.

The 10 Recommendations

The task force issued 10 formal recommendations, which included:

1. Adoption of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework for state agencies
2. Creation of a new state board to oversee generative AI development and use across agencies
3. Implementation of a standard data classification framework for AI systems
4. Establishment of human oversight requirements for AI monitoring and auditing
5. Development of transparency protocols for documenting and publishing notices of AI use with state data
6. Frameworks for AI workforce education and training
7. Guidelines for GenAI procurement and development
8. Protocols ensuring AI applications respect data ownership and privacy standards
9. Responsible and ethical use policies
10. Unique generative AI governance frameworks

These recommendations focus on government use of AI and do not directly regulate private sector AI activities.

2026 Legislative Session: AI Bills

Alabama's 2026 legislative session, which adjourned March 27, 2026, introduced several AI-related bills. Two of those bills, SB 63 and HJR51, were enacted into law. Two others, SB 129 and HB 324, died in committee without a floor vote.

SB 63: AI in Health Insurance Decisions (Now Act 2026-589)

Senate Bill 63, sponsored by Senator Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), regulates the use of AI in health insurance coverage determinations. The bill passed the Alabama Senate on February 19, 2026, was approved by the House Committee on Insurance on March 17, 2026, and went on to pass the full House on April 8, 2026. Governor Ivey signed it into law on April 16, 2026, as Act 2026-589, with an effective date of October 1, 2026.

The law is narrower than its popular description. It governs prior authorization within utilization review, not health insurance claim denials generally. Codified at Ala. Code § 27-1-17.2, its requirements are:

• A determination to deny, delay, or modify a request for prior authorization based on medical necessity must always be made by a licensed physician or other health care professional competent to evaluate the AI's recommendation in light of the enrollee's specific clinical issues, not by the AI alone (subsection (b)(3)).
• AI used for medical necessity determinations must base them on the enrollee's own medical history, the clinical circumstances the requesting provider presents, and additional clinical information in the enrollee's medical record (subsection (b)(1)).
• The provider must certify annually to the Alabama Department of Insurance that its AI does not rely on a group dataset, is fairly and equitably applied, and does not discriminate directly or indirectly against any subscriber group or enrollee (subsection (b)(2)).
• Prominent written disclosures about AI use in utilization review go in the provider's own policies and procedures (subsection (c)(1)). The statute does not require individualized notice to an enrollee that AI was involved in their case.
• The provider must periodically review its AI and the outcomes it generates for accuracy and reliability, and may not use patient data from utilization review beyond its stated purpose (subsection (c)(2) and (c)(3)).

Enforcement runs through the Department of Insurance rather than a private lawsuit (subsection (d)). The department notifies the provider of a suspected violation, the provider has 30 days to respond, and an unsatisfactory response can lead to a hearing and a corrective plan. For repeat violations occurring with such frequency as to indicate a general business pattern or practice, the department may impose an administrative fine of up to $5,000 and may suspend or revoke the provider's certificate of authority.

Note the limit of this protection. Because the statute is keyed to prior authorization decided on medical necessity grounds, it does not reach a post-service claim denial made on other grounds, such as eligibility, coding, or the service being a non-covered benefit. The law does not ban AI in health insurance; it sets boundaries on how insurers may apply it in utilization review.

SB 129: AI Content Disclosure (Died in Committee)

Senate Bill 129, filed by Senator Tim Melson (R-Florence), would have required content created by AI to include a disclosure that it is AI-generated, with the disclosure easy to see or hear and not removable. This proposal aligned with broader transparency efforts seen in states like California and their AI transparency laws, but SB 129 never advanced past the Senate Judiciary Committee and died when the 2026 Regular Session adjourned on March 27, 2026, without a floor vote.

HB 324: Chatbot Age Verification (Died in Committee)

House Bill 324 would have required AI chatbots to implement age verification systems and prevent minors from interacting with AI that has "human-like features." The bill reflected growing concern about children's exposure to conversational AI systems, but it never advanced past the House Judiciary Committee and died when the 2026 Regular Session adjourned on March 27, 2026, without a floor vote.

JR 51: AI and Children's Internet Safety Study Commission (Now Act 2026-218)

On February 12, 2026, Alabama legislators approved Joint Resolution 51, creating an AI and Children's Internet Safety Study Commission. Governor Ivey signed the resolution on March 10, 2026, and it is now Act 2026-218. The commission will study the intersection of AI technology and child safety online, potentially informing future legislation.

AI and Employment in Alabama

Alabama has not enacted specific legislation governing AI in employment decisions, such as automated hiring tools or algorithmic management. This contrasts with jurisdictions like New York City, which enacted Local Law 144 requiring bias audits of automated employment decision tools.

However, Alabama's existing employment and anti-discrimination laws do apply when employers use AI tools. Employers using AI in recruiting, scheduling, workforce analytics, or performance evaluation must ensure their AI systems comply with federal and state anti-discrimination protections.

The absence of specific AI hiring laws does not mean employers face no compliance obligations. AI systems that produce discriminatory outcomes in hiring or promotion decisions could expose employers to liability under existing civil rights frameworks, including Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Alabama Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Federal AI Policy and Alabama

Executive Order 14365

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence." This order has direct implications for Alabama's AI legislative efforts.

The executive order creates several mechanisms to limit state AI regulation:

• DOJ AI Litigation Task Force: Empowered to challenge state AI laws on grounds of unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce or federal preemption
• Legislative Recommendations: Directs federal officials to prepare recommendations for a uniform federal AI policy framework that would preempt conflicting state laws
• Funding Conditions: States with certain AI regulations may be blocked from receiving Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) funding

Impact on Alabama

Alabama lawmakers have acknowledged the tension between state-level AI regulation and the federal executive order. However, several important carve-outs in EO 14365 preserve traditional areas of state authority, including:

• Child safety regulations
• AI compute and data center infrastructure
• State government procurement and use of AI
• Other traditional areas of state police power

Because federal preemption typically requires congressional action rather than executive orders, EO 14365 alone likely cannot displace Alabama's existing or proposed AI laws. Nevertheless, the threat of lost federal funding and DOJ challenges creates a chilling effect on state legislative ambitions.

Alabama's healthcare AI law (SB 63, now Act 2026-589) and children's safety measure (JR 51, now Act 2026-218) likely fall within the protected carve-outs, making them less vulnerable to federal challenge. HB 324, which would have addressed chatbot age verification for minors, died in committee before reaching a vote.

Sexually Explicit Deepfakes

Alabama is among 46 states that have enacted laws addressing the creation or distribution of deepfakes depicting explicit sexual acts or other sensitive content. Alabama's existing criminal statutes on nonconsensual pornography and child exploitation apply to AI-generated content.

Alabama law already reaches AI-generated child sexual abuse material on its face, so the gap is smaller than it is often described. Ala. Code § 13A-12-190(2) defines child sexual abuse material to include a "virtually indistinguishable depiction," and subdivision (15) defines that term as a visual depiction "created, altered, or produced by digital, computer generated, or other means" that a reasonable person would conclude is of an actual individual under 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. That definition does not turn on whether a real child was photographed.

Two other provisions confirm the Legislature has already legislated against AI in this area. Ala. Code § 6-5-840(b) expressly refers to "the production, generation, incorporation, or synthesization through artificial intelligence of child sexual abuse material," and Ala. Code § 16-3-41(2) requires every local board of education to adopt a written policy prohibiting private, explicit, or pornographic images generated with artificial intelligence.

Alabama's approach mirrors a national trend. State lawmakers across the country adopted 64 deepfake-related laws in 2025 alone, up from 52 the previous year, with sexually explicit material and political communications as the most common targets.

Looking Ahead: Alabama's AI Regulatory Future

Alabama's AI regulatory landscape remains a work in progress. The state has established a foundation through HB 172 and Executive Order 738, but comprehensive AI regulation has not yet materialized.

Several factors will shape Alabama's AI policy trajectory:

State-level dynamics: The AI Task Force's recommendations could inform future legislation, particularly around government AI use and procurement. The 2026 session enacted two AI bills (SB 63 and HJR51) and left two others (SB 129 and HB 324) to die in committee; those unpassed proposals signal legislative priorities that may return in a future session.

Federal influence: Executive Order 14365 creates uncertainty about the scope of permissible state AI regulation. Alabama lawmakers will need to navigate this federal framework while addressing constituent concerns about AI safety and accountability.

Industry pressure: Alabama's growing technology sector and the presence of defense-related AI work at Huntsville's Redstone Arsenal create economic incentives to balance regulation with innovation.

National trends: As states like Colorado, California, and others enact comprehensive AI laws, Alabama may face pressure to adopt similar frameworks to protect its residents while remaining competitive for technology investment.

More Alabama Laws

Explore other Alabama law topics on Recording Law:

• Alabama Recording Laws
• Alabama Data Privacy Laws
• Alabama Whistleblower Laws
• Alabama Background Check Laws
• Alabama Sexting Laws