Alaska AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Alaska criminalized AI-generated child sexual abuse material in 2026. House Bill 239, the consolidated public safety bill, became law without the governor's signature on June 18, 2026 as chapter 9, SLA 2026, and the new offenses it created at AS 11.61.121 and AS 11.61.122 took effect July 1, 2026. Alaska still has no comprehensive AI statute: the broader 2026 proposals on election deepfake disclosures, platform liability, and state agency use of AI all died when the 34th Legislature adjourned.

Overview of Alaska AI Laws

Alaska has taken its first concrete step on artificial intelligence, and it is a criminal one. The state has no comprehensive AI framework governing private-sector development, disclosure, or automated decision-making, but as of July 1, 2026 it does have felony offenses aimed squarely at AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

Those offenses arrived through House Bill 239, a wide-ranging public safety act that folded in provisions from roughly ten separate bills. Section 25 of the act added two new sections to AS 11.61: distribution of generated obscene child sexual abuse material (AS 11.61.121) and possession of generated obscene child sexual abuse material (AS 11.61.122). The bill's current status on the legislature's own tracking system reads "CHAPTER 9 SLA 26."

The standalone AI bill that got most of the attention, House Bill 47, did not pass. It cleared the House in February 2026, stalled in Senate Judiciary in April, and died there. Several of its most-discussed features never became law, a distinction covered in detail below.

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 2, which proposed a broader AI governance framework covering election deepfakes and state agency AI use, never moved past its initial committee referral.

This article covers Alaska's enacted AI criminal statutes, the proposals that failed, the state's AI task force, and how federal policy affects Alaska's regulatory approach. This information is current as of September 2026, but you should consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

HB 239: AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material

House Bill 239 is Alaska's most significant AI-related legislation to date. It passed the Senate 20-0 on May 19, 2026 and the House 39-1 on May 20, 2026, the final day of the session. Governor Dunleavy neither signed nor vetoed it, so it became law without his signature on June 18, 2026.

Why This Law Was Needed

Alaska was among only five states that had not yet criminalized AI-generated child sexual abuse material as of early 2025. Alaska investigators reported encountering AI-generated child abuse cases that could not be prosecuted under existing law, creating an urgent gap in child protection.

Criminal Penalties

The enacted law creates two offenses, both effective for conduct on or after July 1, 2026:

HB 239 also added distribution of generated obscene child sexual abuse material to the list of crimes in AS 12.10.010(a) that may be prosecuted at any time, so there is no statute of limitations on a distribution charge.

Two details of the drafting matter in practice. First, the statute never uses the words "artificial intelligence." AS 11.61.122(a)(2) reaches material that, "by manipulation, creation, or modification," appears to depict a child under 18 engaged in the conduct described in AS 11.41.455(a)(1) to (8), "regardless of whether an actual child was used." That language is technology-neutral and covers AI-generated imagery without naming the tool. Second, the possession offense is written around an obscenity test: the material must appeal to the prurient interest under contemporary community standards and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Both sections carry a narrow exception for employees and contractors of interactive computer services, internet service providers, cloud providers, and telecommunications networks who handle the material solely to detect, report, or respond to it in the scope of their work.

Provisions That Did Not Become Law

Several measures widely reported during the 2026 session were part of HB 47, not HB 239, and they are not Alaska law. The enrolled text of HB 239 contains no reference to any of them:

HB 47: What Failed and Why It Matters

House Bill 47 passed the Alaska House by a vote of 39 to 0 on February 27, 2026. It was referred to Senate Community and Regional Affairs, moved out of that committee on April 10, 2026, and was referred to Senate Judiciary, where it sat until the session ended. Its recorded status remains "(S) JUD."

Because the CSAM felonies were rescued into HB 239, the practical effect of HB 47's failure is limited to the provisions HB 239 left behind.

Platform Liability: Proposed, Not Enacted

HB 47's most-discussed provision was a $1 million civil penalty on AI platforms for every instance their system was used to generate child sexual abuse material. Nothing comparable appears in HB 239, and Alaska imposes no such penalty today. Platform exposure in Alaska is governed by ordinary federal and state law, not by a state AI-specific civil penalty.

Other Failed Proposals

Lawmakers expanded HB 47 before the House vote to add two misdemeanor offenses. Neither survived into the enacted law:

• Forged digital likenesses: distributing AI-generated voice or visual clones used to defraud, harass, or intimidate would have been a crime. Alaska has no such offense.
• Generated sexual depictions of adults: distributing manipulated sexual imagery of an adult intended to cause physical, emotional, or economic harm would have been a class A misdemeanor. Alaska has no such offense.

Social Media Restrictions for Minors: Not Enacted

The expanded version of HB 47 also carried a package of social media rules for children. None of them is in force:

• Anyone under 18 would have needed parental or guardian permission to create a social media account
• Parents would have received full access to their children's accounts
• A default 10:30 p.m. social media curfew for minors
• Platforms would have been prohibited from advertising to minors
• Algorithms could not have targeted content to children based on their identity or interests

Senate Bill 2: A Comprehensive AI Bill That Stalled

Senate Bill 2, introduced by Senator Shelley Hughes on January 22, 2025, took a broader approach to AI regulation. The bill addressed three distinct areas: election deepfakes, state agency AI use, and data transfers. It never received a committee vote and died with the 34th Legislature.

Election Deepfake Disclosure Requirements

SB 2 would have required disclosure for election-related deepfakes. If a person knew or reasonably should have known that a communication included a deepfake depicting a candidate or political party intended to injure their reputation or deceive voters, they would have had to include a statement reading: "This communication has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence."

The disclosure requirements varied by format:

• Audio content: The disclaimer had to be easily heard
• Print materials: The disclaimer had to be clearly visible
• Video content: The disclaimer had to be easily discernible on screen

State Agency AI Regulations

The bill would have established some of the most stringent state-level rules for government AI use in the country:

• Biennial inventories: Every two years, state agencies would catalog all AI systems used for consequential decisions, including system names, vendor information, and general capabilities
• Impact assessments: Agencies would complete assessments for AI systems used in consequential decision-making
• Individual rights: Citizens would have rights to consent, notification, and appeal when AI is used in decisions affecting them
• Prohibited uses: State agencies would be banned from using AI for biometric identification, emotion recognition, and social scoring

Data Transfer Restrictions

SB 2 also addressed data transfers between state agencies, requiring that personal data be disclosed to individuals before it could be shared between government entities. This provision would have added a layer of transparency to how the state manages citizen data.

Current Status

SB 2 never advanced. Its recorded status is "(S) STA / Then JUD" with a status date of January 22, 2025, the day it was introduced, meaning it received its committee referrals and no further floor or committee action. It died when the 34th Legislature adjourned on May 20, 2026. A similar bill would have to be reintroduced in the 35th Legislature to move forward.

Alaska's AI Task Force: HCR 3

The Alaska Legislature established the Joint Legislative Task Force on Artificial Intelligence through HCR 3. The task force was charged with evaluating and supporting the responsible use and development of artificial intelligence statewide.

Task Force Mandate

The resolution directed the task force to study several key areas:

• AI applications in state government operations
• AI use in education and workforce development
• Legal and ethical issues including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and deepfakes
• Economic opportunities from AI development, including the potential for AI data centers in Alaska
• Frameworks for responsible AI governance

Reporting Deadline

The task force was required to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Senate Secretary and the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives by January 31, 2026. These recommendations are expected to inform future AI legislation in the state.

AI in Alaska State Government

Alaska has already begun integrating AI into state operations. The Alaska Office of Information Technology has introduced AI features for state employees, and the state has explored embedding "agentic artificial intelligence" into the myAlaska mobile app.

The myAlaska app serves as the state's official platform for citizens to access government services through a single sign-on system. Plans to integrate AI would allow the system to act on behalf of users, streamlining access to services like the Permanent Fund Dividend and other state programs.

These developments highlight the tension between promoting efficient AI use in government and establishing adequate safeguards. With SB 2 dead, no Alaska statute currently governs how state agencies deploy AI, and agency practice is set by executive and departmental policy rather than legislation.

AI and Employment in Alaska

Alaska has not enacted specific legislation governing AI in employment decisions. Senate Bill 177, a predecessor bill from the previous legislative session, proposed transparency requirements for AI hiring tools and broader AI governance measures, but did not advance to passage.

The key employment-related AI proposals that have been discussed in Alaska include:

• Requiring employers to disclose when AI is used in recruitment or evaluation processes
• Encouraging state agencies to adopt responsible AI practices with risk assessments and human oversight
• Establishing definitions for automated decision-making systems within Alaska's legal framework

Until specific AI employment legislation is enacted, Alaska employers using AI in hiring must comply with existing federal and state anti-discrimination protections. AI systems that produce biased outcomes in employment decisions could create liability under federal civil rights laws.

Federal AI Policy and Alaska

Executive Order 14365

President Trump's Executive Order 14365, signed December 11, 2025, creates potential tension with state AI legislation. The order establishes mechanisms to challenge state AI laws and conditions certain federal funding on states' regulatory approaches.

Impact on Alaska

Alaska's AI legislation intersects with the federal framework in several ways:

The enacted CSAM offenses (AS 11.61.121 and AS 11.61.122): These fall within EO 14365's protected carve-outs for child safety regulations, making them less vulnerable to federal challenge. The executive order explicitly preserves state authority over child safety matters.

Any revival of SB 2: Provisions governing state government procurement and use of AI would also fall within a protected carve-out. Election deepfake disclosure requirements could face more scrutiny if they were deemed to conflict with the federal policy framework.

Broader concerns: The threat of lost Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) funding is particularly relevant for Alaska, where broadband infrastructure development is critical given the state's vast geography and many rural communities with limited connectivity.

Deepfake Protections in Alaska

Alaska's deepfake coverage is narrow. Only one category is criminalized:

Sexually explicit deepfakes involving children (enacted): AS 11.61.121 and AS 11.61.122 create felony penalties for distributing and possessing generated obscene child sexual abuse material, effective July 1, 2026.

Election deepfakes (not enacted): SB 2 would have required disclosure statements on AI-manipulated political communications depicting candidates or parties. It died in committee, so Alaska has no election deepfake disclosure law.

Sexually explicit deepfakes of adults (not enacted): HB 47 would have made distributing manipulated sexual imagery of an adult a class A misdemeanor. That provision was not carried into HB 239.

Forged digital likenesses (not enacted): HB 47 would have criminalized AI-generated voice or visual clones used to defraud, harass, or intimidate. That provision was not carried into HB 239 either.

Alaskans harmed by a non-child deepfake are left with general legal theories such as defamation, harassment, fraud, and the right of publicity rather than a purpose-built statute.

Looking Ahead: Alaska's AI Regulatory Future

Alaska's AI regulatory landscape is developing rapidly. The 2026 session produced the state's first AI-related criminal statutes and left most of the rest of the AI agenda unfinished.

Key factors that will shape Alaska's AI policy:

Legislative momentum: The unanimous House passage of HB 47 and the near-unanimous passage of HB 239 show strong bipartisan support for AI regulation in the context of child safety. Whether that momentum extends to platform liability, election deepfakes, or minors' social media use is untested, since each of those measures failed to get a Senate floor vote.

The vehicle problem: HB 47's fate is a reminder that a standalone bill can pass one chamber unanimously and still die. The provisions that survived did so by being folded into an omnibus public safety act.

Federal constraints: EO 14365's funding conditions are particularly significant for Alaska, which relies on federal broadband funding for connectivity in remote areas. This dynamic may moderate the scope of state AI regulation.

AI task force recommendations: The findings from the HCR 3 task force will likely inform the next wave of AI legislation in the 35th Legislature, providing a research-backed foundation for policy decisions.

More Alaska Laws

Explore other Alaska law topics on Recording Law:

• Alaska Recording Laws
• Alaska Data Privacy Laws
• Alaska Whistleblower Laws
• Alaska Sexting Laws
• Alaska Biometric Privacy Laws