Florida AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Florida regulates artificial intelligence through three targeted statutes rather than a single comprehensive law. Fla. Stat. § 836.13 criminalizes AI-generated sexually explicit deepfakes and, since Brooke's Law (HB 1161), requires online platforms to take them down on request, HB 919 requires disclaimers on AI-generated political ads, and the Florida Digital Bill of Rights grants consumers the right to opt out of automated profiling.

Overview of Florida AI Laws

Florida has emerged as one of the more active states in addressing artificial intelligence through targeted legislation rather than a single comprehensive AI statute. The state has enacted laws targeting AI-generated deepfakes, political advertising transparency, and digital privacy, while a broader AI Bill of Rights narrowly failed during the 2026 legislative session.

Florida's approach has been shaped by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who has positioned the state as both pro-innovation and pro-consumer protection. His administration pushed aggressively for the AI Bill of Rights in late 2025, even as the federal government under President Trump moved to limit state AI regulation.

The state's existing AI-related laws focus on three primary areas: criminalizing sexually explicit deepfakes, requiring transparency in AI-generated political advertising, and providing data privacy protections through the Florida Digital Bill of Rights. Several additional proposals remain under consideration for future legislative sessions.

This article covers all enacted and pending Florida AI legislation, executive actions, and the interplay between state and federal AI policy. This information is current as of March 2026, but you should consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Deepfake Laws: Fla. Stat. § 836.13

Florida's most significant AI legislation is Fla. Stat. § 836.13, which criminalizes altered sexual depictions. The section was created in 2022 by chapter 2022-212 and expanded twice in 2025. House Bill 1161 (chapter 2025-133), known as "Brooke's Law," was signed and took effect on June 10, 2025. House Bill 757 (chapter 2025-99), titled "Sexual Images," further expanded the section's criminal offenses and took effect on October 1, 2025.

Brooke's Law is named after the daughter of former Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry, who fought to remove AI-generated images of his daughter created by another teenager.

What the Law Prohibits

Under Fla. Stat. § 836.13, it is a third-degree felony to generate or to solicit an altered sexual depiction of an identifiable person without that person's consent, and a third-degree felony to willfully and maliciously promote such a depiction or to possess one with the intent to maliciously promote it. The statute contains no simple-possession offense: possessing an image, without the intent to promote it, is not one of the crimes the section creates. The statute defines an "altered sexual depiction" as any visual depiction that uses digital, electronic, mechanical, or other modification to create a realistic version of an identifiable person in sexually explicit scenarios.

Specifically, the law covers depictions that show an identifiable person with the nude body parts of another person substituted as their own, with computer-generated nude body parts, or engaging in sexual conduct in which the person did not actually participate.

Criminal Penalties

The statute does not create a tiered penalty structure by act. Generating, soliciting, or maliciously promoting (or possessing with intent to maliciously promote) an altered sexual depiction is a third-degree felony in every case, and the section draws no distinction based on whether the person depicted is a minor. Every act, thing, or transaction the section prohibits is a separate offense.

Civil Remedies

Beyond criminal penalties, Fla. Stat. § 836.13 creates a civil cause of action for victims of the generating and promoting offenses. Individuals depicted in altered sexual depictions may sue for injunctive relief, monetary damages of at least $10,000 or actual damages (whichever is greater), and attorney's fees. This dual enforcement mechanism provides victims with both criminal justice and financial recovery options.

Platform Removal Requirements (Brooke's Law, HB 1161)

Brooke's Law, House Bill 1161 (chapter 2025-133), effective June 10, 2025, added Fla. Stat. § 836.13(8), which requires covered platforms to establish a process for reporting and removing altered sexual depictions. Covered platforms had to have that process in place no later than December 31, 2025, and must remove reported content as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours, after receiving a valid removal request.

The law provides liability protections for platforms that act in good faith to remove content. However, platforms that fail to comply face penalties under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, exposing them to enforcement actions by the Florida Attorney General.

AI in Political Advertising: HB 919

Florida was among the first states to address AI-generated content in political campaigns. House Bill 919, signed by Governor DeSantis in April 2024, took effect on July 1, 2024, and created Fla. Stat. § 106.145.

Disclosure Requirements

The law requires any political advertisement, electioneering communication, or other miscellaneous political advertisement that contains AI-generated content to include a specific disclaimer. The disclaimer requirement is triggered when AI-generated content appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not occur in reality.

For visual content, the disclaimer must state: "Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)." In a printed communication the text must be in bold font of at least 12 points; in a television or video communication it must be clearly readable throughout and occupy at least 4 percent of the vertical picture height.

For any audio component, the disclaimer must be at least 3 seconds in length and spoken in a clearly audible and intelligible manner at either the beginning or the end of the audio, not at both.

Intent Requirement

An important limitation of the law is its intent requirement. The disclaimer is only mandatory when the AI-generated content was created with the intent to injure a candidate or deceive the public regarding a ballot issue. This means AI-generated content used for legitimate educational or informational purposes may not require a disclaimer.

Penalties

Violations of the disclaimer requirement constitute a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Additionally, candidates harmed by violations may file complaints with the Florida Elections Commission seeking civil fines against the violator.

Florida is now one of 28 states that have enacted laws requiring disclosure of AI-generated content in political communications.

Florida Digital Bill of Rights (SB 262)

While not exclusively an AI law, the Florida Digital Bill of Rights (SB 262), signed by Governor DeSantis on June 6, 2023, and effective July 1, 2024, contains important provisions affecting AI systems that process personal data.

Automated Profiling Rights

The law grants Florida consumers the right to opt out of automated profiling when such profiling is used to make decisions that produce "legal or similarly significant effects." This provision directly impacts AI systems used for automated decision-making in areas such as credit determinations, insurance underwriting, and employment screening.

Consumers also have the right to opt out of personal data processing for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and profiling that produces legal or similarly significant effects.

Scope Limitations

The Digital Bill of Rights has a notably narrow scope compared to privacy laws in other states. It applies only to entities that generate more than $1 billion in annual global revenues and satisfy at least one additional criterion, such as deriving at least 50% of revenues from online advertising sales, operating a consumer smart speaker with a virtual assistant, or operating an app store with at least 250,000 apps.

This high threshold means the law primarily targets large technology companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta, while smaller companies using AI systems are generally exempt.

Children's Privacy Protections Sit in a Separate Statute

The child-specific protections often described alongside the Digital Bill of Rights are not part of it. SB 262 also created Fla. Stat. § 501.1735, "Protection of children in online spaces," which sits outside the part of chapter 501 that may be cited as the Florida Digital Bill of Rights and applies to online platforms such as social media platforms, online games, and online gaming platforms likely to be predominantly accessed by children. That section is where the child-specific definition lives: "profiling" means any form of automated processing performed on personal information to evaluate, analyze, or predict personal aspects relating to the economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behavior, location, or movements of a child.

The Digital Bill of Rights itself has no child-specific profiling definition. Its general definition, at Fla. Stat. § 501.702(25), covers any form of solely automated processing performed on personal data to evaluate, analyze, or predict personal aspects related to an identified or identifiable individual.

The Failed AI Bill of Rights: SB 482

The most ambitious AI legislation proposed in Florida was Senate Bill 482, the "Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights," filed on December 22, 2025, by Senator Tom Leek with strong backing from Governor DeSantis.

What the Bill Would Have Done

SB 482 would have established a comprehensive set of rights for Floridians regarding artificial intelligence, including the right to use AI to improve their lives, the right to know whether they are communicating with a human or an AI system, and the right to supervise and control their minor children's use of AI.

Key provisions of SB 482 included:

• Banning minors from creating or maintaining AI chatbot accounts without parental consent
• Requiring AI companies to disclose when they collect personal information or biometric data
• Prohibiting AI from using an individual's name, image, or likeness without consent
• Requiring transparency about AI-generated political advertisements
• Prohibiting government entities from contracting with AI companies owned by "foreign countries of concern" such as China or Russia, beginning July 1, 2026

Legislative History

The bill passed the Florida Senate on March 4, 2026, with a vote of 35-2. However, the House companion bill (HB 1395) was assigned to four committees, which was widely viewed as a sign of House leadership opposition to the proposal.

The bill ultimately died in House Messages on March 13, 2026, when the legislative session ended without the House taking action.

Why the Bill Failed

Several factors contributed to the bill's failure. The House leadership disagreed with the scope and approach of the Senate version. Additionally, President Trump's Executive Order 14365, signed in December 2025, created uncertainty about whether such state-level AI regulation would face federal challenge. Business groups, including the James Madison Institute, warned that aggressive AI regulation could cost Florida up to $38 billion in economic activity.

Other Pending AI Legislation

SB 146: AI in State Agencies Study

Senate Bill 146, filed by Senator Gayle Harrell, would have required the Florida Digital Service to conduct a comprehensive study of how state agencies procure, implement, and operate AI-powered technology. The bill was referred to multiple committees but did not advance during the 2026 session.

SB 484: AI Data Center Regulation

Senate Bill 484 addressed the growing impact of hyperscale AI data centers on Florida communities. The bill, which passed the Senate, would have prevented Florida residents from subsidizing data center electricity costs and empowered local governments to restrict new data center developments in their communities.

Healthcare AI Proposals

Florida legislators have introduced proposals to restrict AI in healthcare decision-making. One bill would outlaw the use of AI as the sole decision-maker in health insurance claim denials, requiring human oversight of coverage determinations. Another proposal would prohibit the use of AI in the direct practice of psychology, clinical social work, marriage and family therapy, and mental health counseling, while permitting AI for administrative support such as billing and scheduling.

AI and Employment in Florida

Florida has not enacted specific legislation governing the use of AI in employment decisions, such as automated hiring tools or algorithmic performance evaluation. Unlike jurisdictions like New York City (Local Law 144) or Illinois (AI Video Interview Act), Florida does not require bias audits of automated employment decision tools.

However, Florida employers using AI in hiring, recruiting, or workplace management must still comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The EEOC has emphasized that existing equal employment opportunity laws apply fully when employers use automated systems in employment decisions.

Florida's existing consumer protection statutes, including the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, may also apply to AI systems that make misleading or harmful employment-related decisions.

Federal AI Policy and Florida

Executive Order 14365

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence." The order aims to establish a "minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI" and reduce diverging state laws.

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

• A DOJ AI Litigation Task Force empowered to challenge state AI laws on constitutional grounds
• Legislative recommendations for uniform federal AI standards that would preempt conflicting state laws
• Potential withholding of federal broadband funding from states with certain AI regulations

Florida's Response

Governor DeSantis was one of the most vocal critics of the executive order's preemption claims. He stated publicly that "an executive order doesn't/can't preempt state legislative action," positioning Florida as a state that would continue pursuing its own AI regulatory agenda regardless of the federal executive order.

This position reflects a broader legal reality: federal preemption typically flows from congressional enactments rather than executive orders, meaning EO 14365 alone likely cannot displace state AI laws.

Protected Carve-Outs

The executive order includes exemptions for several categories of state laws, reflecting pressure from Republican-controlled states including Florida:

• Child safety protections
• AI compute and data center infrastructure regulations
• State government procurement and use of AI
• Other topics to be determined

Florida's existing deepfake laws (Fla. Stat. § 836.13, as amended by HB 757 and HB 1161), its data center regulation proposals (SB 484), and government AI procurement studies (SB 146) all fall within these protected categories, making them less vulnerable to federal challenge.

Looking Ahead: Florida's AI Regulatory Future

Despite the failure of SB 482, Florida's AI regulatory trajectory points toward continued legislative activity. Several factors will shape the state's approach in future sessions.

Governor DeSantis has signaled that AI regulation remains a priority for his administration. The strong Senate support for SB 482 (35-2 vote) suggests broad bipartisan appetite for AI consumer protections, even if the House was unwilling to act during the 2026 session.

Florida's existing framework of deepfake laws, election advertising disclosure requirements, and the Digital Bill of Rights provides a foundation for additional AI regulation. Future legislation may address gaps in AI employment regulation, healthcare AI oversight, and broader consumer protection.

The tension between state innovation goals and consumer protection will continue to define Florida's approach. The James Madison Institute's warning about potential economic costs of AI regulation will weigh against growing public concern over AI's impact on privacy, employment, and safety.

More Florida Laws

Explore other Florida law topics on Recording Law:

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