Hawaii AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Hawaii regulates AI through a patchwork of targeted laws rather than a single comprehensive statute. Act 248 (2026), the Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act, sets disclosure and minor-safety duties for AI companion services, while HRS 711-1110.9 criminalizes sexually explicit deepfakes as a class C felony and insurance regulators require AI-driven decisions to comply with existing consumer protection standards.

Overview of Hawaii AI Laws

Hawaii has been one of the most legislatively active states on artificial intelligence, introducing the most AI-related bills of any state in 2025 with 23 measures. However, the state's ambitious regulatory efforts have largely struggled to advance, with all of its 2025 AI bills failing to pass and its signature election deepfake law being struck down as unconstitutional.

Despite these setbacks, Hawaii has several important AI-related laws on the books. The state criminalizes AI-generated sexually explicit deepfakes as a class C felony and has active insurance regulatory guidance on AI use. The 2026 legislative session produced the state's flagship result: SB 3001, an AI companion safety bill, was signed into law as Act 248 on July 14, 2026. A 2024 proposal to create a dedicated Office of Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (SB 2572) was deferred in committee and never became law.

Hawaii's experience highlights both the ambition and difficulty of state-level AI regulation. The federal court's invalidation of Act 191 has national implications for how states can regulate AI-generated political content, while the state's insurance commissioner has taken a regulatory approach that bypasses the legislature entirely.

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

Proposed AI Oversight Bodies: SB 2572 and HB 2176 (Neither Passed)

Hawaii came close to creating a dedicated AI oversight body in 2024, but neither of the two measures became law. Hawaii has no Office of Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation.

SB 2572: Office of Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation

Senate Bill 2572 would have established an Office of Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulation within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to regulate the development, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence technologies in the State. As introduced, it would also have prohibited the deployment of AI products in Hawaii unless affirmative proof establishing the product's safety was submitted to the office. That sweeping approach drew opposition from state agencies and business organizations.

The bill never reached a floor vote. The Senate committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and on Labor and Technology each deferred the measure on February 15, 2024, which was its last recorded action, and the official measure record shows no act number.

HB 2176: Artificial Intelligence Working Group

House Bill 2176 would have established an Artificial Intelligence Working Group under the Office of Enterprise Technology Services to develop acceptable-use policies and guidelines for the regulation, development, deployment, and use of AI in the State.

It advanced further than SB 2572 but also died. On February 16, 2024, it was reported from the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce as amended in HD 2 and referred to the Finance Committee, where it received no further action. Its act field is blank, and no AI working group was created. The HD 2 draft carried an effective date of July 1, 3000, the standard Hawaii drafting convention signaling a measure still being negotiated.

Critics have noted that Hawaii still lacks a "cohesive strategy" for AI regulation.

Election Deepfake Law: Act 191 (Struck Down)

Hawaii's most high-profile AI legislation was Act 191, signed by Governor Josh Green in 2024. The law was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court in January 2026, making it a significant case study in the limits of state deepfake regulation.

What the Law Prohibited

Act 191 made it illegal to distribute "materially deceptive media" in connection with state elections. The law targeted media that falsely portrayed people saying or doing things they never did when shared with reckless disregard for the potential to damage a candidate's reputation or electoral chances.

The prohibition applied during election season, from February through November. Content that included a prominent disclaimer was exempt from the prohibition, creating a safe harbor for labeled AI-generated content.

The Court Challenge

The Babylon Bee, a satirical news publication, challenged Act 191 as a violation of the First Amendment. In January 2026, Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled in the publication's favor, entering a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Key Findings from the Ruling

Judge Park's ruling identified several constitutional deficiencies:

• Content discrimination: Act 191 was "presumptively invalid" because it discriminated based on content and speaker, restricting constitutionally protected political speech
• Compelled speech: The mandatory disclaimer "would impermissibly alter the content, intended effect, and message of their speech," noting that "a mandatory disclaimer for parody or satire would kill the joke"
• Vagueness: The law's prohibition on distributing media in "reckless disregard of the risk of harming" a candidate's reputation was unconstitutionally vague
• Less restrictive alternatives: Hawaii failed to show that digital literacy education, voluntary counter-speech campaigns, and existing defamation laws could not achieve its goals

National Implications

This ruling has significant implications for the 28 other states that have enacted election deepfake laws. Many of these statutes contain similar provisions that could face First Amendment challenges, particularly those that restrict parody or satire involving AI-generated content.

Sexually Explicit Deepfake Law: HRS § 711-1110.9

Hawaii's criminal law addressing AI-generated sexually explicit content predates its election deepfake legislation and remains in force. Under HRS § 711-1110.9, creating or distributing AI-generated sexually explicit deepfakes constitutes a first-degree violation of privacy, a class C felony.

What the Law Prohibits

The statute makes it illegal to intentionally create, disclose, or threaten to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person depicted in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct that includes the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person. The image or video must appear to depict the known person rather than a composite fictitious person.

Intent Requirement

Prosecution requires proof that the defendant acted with intent to substantially harm the depicted person's health, safety, business, calling, career, education, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships. The statute also covers actions taken as revenge or retribution.

Criminal Penalties

As a class C felony, violations carry significant prison time. Hawaii is among 46 states that have enacted laws addressing the creation or distribution of sexually explicit deepfakes.

Legislative History

Senate Bill 309 amended HRS § 711-1110.9 to explicitly include language covering the creation, disclosure, or threat of disclosure of nonconsensual sexually explicit material as a first-degree privacy violation. This amendment ensured that AI-generated content received the same treatment as manipulated photographic material.

AI in Insurance: Commissioner's Memorandum 2025-13A

Rather than waiting for legislative action, Hawaii's Insurance Division took a regulatory approach to AI governance in the insurance industry. Commissioner's Memorandum 2025-13A reminds all insurers authorized to do business in Hawaii that AI-driven decisions must comply with all existing insurance laws and regulations.

Key Requirements

The memorandum establishes that decisions or actions impacting consumers made or supported by advanced analytical and computational technologies, including artificial intelligence systems, are subject to the same regulatory standards as human-made decisions.

This means insurers cannot use AI as a shield against accountability. Whether a coverage determination, claims decision, or underwriting assessment is made by a human adjuster or an AI system, it must meet the same legal standards for fairness, accuracy, and consumer protection.

Proposed Healthcare AI Protections (Not Enacted)

Hawaii's enacted Patients' Bill of Rights, HRS chapter 432E, contains no AI-specific provisions. Companion bills introduced in the 2026 session would have added them, but neither passed.

HB 2537 and SB 3027, both titled "Relating to the Patients' Bill of Rights," would have required that a denial initiated by AI or an automated decision support tool be reviewed before being finalized, that patients and providers be notified when AI is used in a coverage determination, and that insurers report data on prior authorization approvals, denials, and utilization review to the Insurance Commissioner.

Neither measure got a hearing. HB 2537 was introduced on January 28, 2026 and referred to the House committees on Health and on Consumer Protection and Commerce on February 2, 2026; SB 3027 was introduced on January 23, 2026 and referred to Senate committees on January 30, 2026. Both records show no committee reports, no testimony, no scheduled hearings, and a blank act field.

If you are dealing with an AI-driven coverage denial in Hawaii, the operative protections are the general standards in Memorandum 2025-13A and existing insurance law, not AI-specific statutory requirements.

2026 Legislative Session: AI Chatbot Safety Law and Other Bills

SB 3001 (Act 248): Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act

The most significant AI legislation in Hawaii's 2026 session was SB 3001, signed into law as Act 248 on July 14, 2026. It is now the state's flagship operative AI statute.

Section 1 of the enacted text names it the Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act. Section 3 codifies it as a new section of HRS chapter 481B, part I, and Section 7 made it effective upon approval, so its duties took hold immediately on July 14, 2026 rather than on a later phase-in date.

What it covers. The Act regulates "AI companions," defined as AI systems designed to simulate a sustained human or human-like relationship with a user by retaining information about prior sessions to personalize interaction, asking unprompted emotion-based questions, and sustaining ongoing dialogue about matters personal to the user. An "operator" is a person who develops and makes an AI companion available to the public. An app store or search engine that merely provides access to one is not an operator.

Disclosure duties:

• If a reasonable person interacting with an AI companion would be led to believe they are interacting with a human, the operator must give a clear and conspicuous notification that the companion is artificial intelligence and not human
• Where the operator has actual knowledge or reasonable certainty that the user is a minor, that disclosure must be either a persistent visible disclaimer, or a notice at the start of each session plus a reminder at least once per hour of continuous interaction telling the user to take a break and that the conversation is artificially generated

Crisis and safety protocols. Operators must adopt a protocol for responding to user prompts about suicidal ideation or self-harm that makes reasonable efforts to refer the user to crisis intervention services such as a suicide hotline or crisis text line. They must use evidence-based methods for measuring suicidal ideation and self-harm risk, must not program a companion to represent that it provides professional mental or behavioral health care, and must take reasonable measures to prevent the companion from appearing human to a user seeking crisis services or from generating outputs encouraging serious bodily injury to another person.

Added duties where the user is a known minor:

• No points or similar rewards at unpredictable intervals intended to encourage increased engagement
• No outputs that discourage the user from disengaging with the AI companion
• Reasonable measures to prevent the companion from producing visual material of sexually explicit conduct, telling the user to engage in sexually explicit conduct, or making statements that sexually objectify the user
• Tools that let users and their parents or guardians manage screen time and account settings

Reporting. Beginning January 1, 2028, operators must file an annual report with the Behavioral Health Administration of the Department of Health covering the number of crisis referrals issued in the preceding year and the protocols used to detect and respond to suicidal-ideation prompts. Reports may not include user identifiers or personal information.

Enforcement. A violation is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under HRS 480-2. The Act expressly does not create a private right of action, so consumers cannot sue an operator directly under it. It also does not impose liability on the developer of an AI model for violations by an AI system that a third party built to provide an AI companion.

SB 3001 passed the Senate on March 10, 2026, was amended in the House, went to conference, passed both chambers on Final Reading as amended in CD 1 on May 6, 2026, was enrolled to the Governor on May 8, 2026, and became Act 248 on July 14, 2026.

A separate minor-protection bill, HB 1782, failed. HB 1782 would have established safeguards, protections, oversight, and penalties for interactions between minors and AI companion systems or conversational AI services. It is a distinct measure rather than SB 3001's companion: the capitol record pairs SB 3001 with HB 2502, and HB 1782 with SB 2788. HB 1782 passed the House on March 10, 2026 and passed the Senate in amended form (SD 2) on April 14, 2026, but the House disagreed with the Senate amendments, conferees were appointed on April 22, 2026, and the measure went no further. Its act field is blank.

HB 2458: Surveillance Pricing (Not Enacted)

HB 2458 addressed surveillance pricing, the practice of charging different customers different prices based on personal data collected about them. It did not become law, and its act field is blank.

As passed by the House on March 10, 2026, the HD 3 draft would have prohibited any person from using surveillance pricing in the sale of food. That draft defines "surveillance pricing" as customized pricing set based on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance technology. The term "artificial intelligence" does not appear in the bill's operative section, so this is a data-collection measure rather than an AI-specific one.

The Senate then removed the prohibition. As amended in SD 1, the bill would instead have required the Office of Consumer Protection to conduct a study of the extent to which companies operating in the State deploy surveillance pricing practices and report to the Legislature. The measure's last recorded action was a re-referral to Senate committees on March 30, 2026.

HB 1607: AI in Employment Decisions

Hawaii proposed HB 1607, which would prohibit employers from using automated decision tools in a discriminatory manner. The bill would require employers to perform annual impact assessments of their AI tools and provide notice to job applicants when AI is used in hiring decisions. A narrow exception applies to employers with fewer than 50 employees.

While the bill reflects growing national concern about AI bias in employment, it is part of the broader wave of failed AI bills that Hawaii has struggled to advance into law.

AI and Employment in Hawaii

Hawaii has not enacted specific legislation governing AI in employment decisions. Despite proposing HB 1607 and related measures, none have advanced through the legislature. The state's existing anti-discrimination laws, including the Hawaii Employment Practices Act (HRS Chapter 378), apply to employment decisions regardless of whether those decisions are made by humans or AI systems.

Hawaii employers using AI tools for hiring, recruiting, scheduling, or performance evaluation should ensure compliance with both state and federal anti-discrimination protections. The EEOC has consistently maintained that Title VII, the ADA, and other federal employment laws apply to AI-driven employment decisions.

Federal AI Policy and Hawaii

Executive Order 14365

President Trump's Executive Order 14365 (December 11, 2025) creates additional challenges for Hawaii's already difficult AI regulatory efforts. The order establishes a framework intended to limit state AI regulation through potential federal preemption.

Impact on Hawaii

Hawaii's AI regulatory landscape faces a dual challenge. Domestically, the state has struggled to pass comprehensive AI legislation through its own legislature. Externally, the federal executive order threatens to constrain whatever legislation Hawaii does manage to enact.

However, the executive order includes important carve-outs for child safety, state government AI procurement, and other traditional areas of state authority. Hawaii's newly enacted chatbot child safety law (SB 3001, Act 248) falls squarely within the child safety carve-out, making it less vulnerable to federal challenge.

The court's invalidation of Act 191 on First Amendment grounds demonstrates that Hawaii's AI laws face scrutiny from the judiciary as well as the federal executive branch. Future legislative efforts will need to account for both constitutional constraints and federal preemption risks.

The State's Position

State Representative Andrew Garrett has emphasized that Hawaii needs "a more intentional framework instead of reacting bill by bill." This call for a cohesive state AI strategy reflects broader concerns about Hawaii's piecemeal approach to AI regulation and its vulnerability to both tech industry lobbying and federal policy shifts.

Looking Ahead: Hawaii's AI Regulatory Future

Hawaii's AI regulatory trajectory remains uncertain. The state has demonstrated legislative ambition by introducing more AI bills than any other state in 2025, but institutional barriers have prevented most from becoming law.

Several factors will shape Hawaii's AI policy direction in the near term. SB 3001's enactment as Act 248 shows the legislature can translate its ambition into enacted law on the politically popular topic of child safety, even as a separate minor-protection measure, HB 1782, stalled in conference. The federal court's invalidation of Act 191 will force legislators to craft more narrowly tailored approaches to election deepfakes that can survive constitutional challenge.

Tech industry lobbying remains a significant factor. Companies including Meta, Google, and Amazon have actively lobbied against AI transparency measures in Hawaii, arguing that certain proposals "went too far."

Hawaii still has no dedicated AI oversight body, both 2024 proposals having died in committee. Act 248 instead routes enforcement through the state's existing unfair and deceptive practices law, HRS 480-2, with no private right of action for consumers. How vigorously that framework is applied will shape whether the Legislature revisits the idea of a standing AI office.

More Hawaii Laws

Explore other Hawaii law topics on Recording Law:

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