Missouri AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Missouri has no comprehensive AI statute, but it has enacted a narrower intimate-deepfake criminal law, RSMo 573.570 and 573.575, in force since August 28, 2026. The state also applies existing laws, including Chapter 407 RSMo (Missouri Merchandising Practices Act), to govern deceptive AI use, while additional AI-specific bills, including the Taylor Swift Act (SB 1117), remain before the Legislature without having passed.

Missouri closed its biggest AI-law gap in the 2026 session by enacting RSMo 573.570 and 573.575, which criminalize the nonconsensual disclosure of AI-manipulated intimate images and online coercion carried out through sadistic exploitation. Both sections took effect August 28, 2026. The state still has no comprehensive AI statute and no law addressing political or election-related deepfakes, and Missouri lawmakers introduced a flurry of additional AI-related bills during the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions.

This guide covers Missouri's current legal landscape for artificial intelligence, pending legislation, attorney general actions, and how federal AI policy fills gaps in state regulation. Whether you are a developer, business owner, or legal professional, this is your complete resource for understanding AI law in the Show-Me State.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for guidance on specific situations.

Missouri's Current AI Legal Landscape

Missouri has not enacted a comprehensive law specifically regulating artificial intelligence. Unlike states such as Colorado, California, and Illinois, which have passed broad AI governance statutes, Missouri currently relies on its existing legal framework to address AI-related issues.

What Laws Currently Apply to AI in Missouri

Although no Missouri statute uses the phrase "artificial intelligence" in its operative provisions, several existing laws apply to AI systems and their effects:

• Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA): The state's primary consumer protection statute, Chapter 407 RSMo, prohibits deceptive and unfair business practices. The Attorney General can bring enforcement actions against companies that use AI in deceptive ways, including misleading chatbots or AI-generated marketing claims.
• Anti-discrimination laws: Missouri's Human Rights Act (Chapter 213 RSMo) prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. AI tools that produce discriminatory outcomes in hiring or lending may violate these protections.
• Data breach notification: Missouri's data breach notification law (Section 407.1500 RSMo) requires notification when personal information is compromised, which applies to AI systems that process or store personal data.

Why Missouri Has Been Slow to Act

Missouri's cautious approach reflects a broader philosophical stance. The state Legislature has historically favored limited regulation and business-friendly policies. Several factors contribute to the delayed action on AI legislation. The technology has evolved faster than most state legislatures can respond. There is genuine disagreement about whether state-level regulation could stifle innovation. Additionally, federal action (or the prospect of it) has led some states to wait.

However, the 2025 and 2026 sessions show a clear shift. Missouri lawmakers are now actively debating multiple AI bills, with growing bipartisan support for at least targeted regulation.

Missouri's Intimate-Deepfake Law (In Effect Since August 28, 2026)

This was Missouri's most significant gap in AI regulation until the 2026 session. As of mid-2025, only three states lacked deepfake legislation: Missouri, Alaska, and Ohio. Missouri closed part of that gap this session: RSMo 573.570 makes it a Class D felony to disclose an intimate digital depiction created or altered through digital manipulation, including AI, without the depicted person's consent, and a Class E felony to threaten to disclose one. A related offense, RSMo 573.575 (sadistic online exploitation), is a Class E felony that reaches using the internet to coerce a victim into self-harm, harming an animal or another person, disclosing personal information, or suicidal acts, and using shame, fear, or intimate depictions to extort sexually explicit content or money. Both sections took effect August 28, 2026.

Since RSMo 573.570 and 573.575 took effect on August 28, 2026:

• Disclosing an intimate digital depiction of someone without their consent is a Class D felony, and threatening to disclose one is a Class E felony, with enhanced Class C felony penalties for repeat violations or depictions meant to influence an official proceeding or facilitate violence. Creating such an image, without disclosing it or threatening to disclose it, is not itself an offense under RSMo 573.570
• Distributing political deepfakes near elections still faces no state-level criminal penalty, since the two sections cover only intimate depictions and online coercion
• For conduct occurring before the effective date, and for conduct the sections do not reach, victims of deepfake exploitation must rely on federal law or general state causes of action like defamation, invasion of privacy, or the MMPA

Federal Protection as a Backstop

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12), signed into federal law in May 2025, provides overlapping protection for Missouri residents alongside the state's RSMo 573.570 and 573.575 offenses. This federal law criminalizes the creation and distribution of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes nationwide, with penalties of up to 3 years imprisonment. However, neither the federal law nor Missouri's statute addresses political deepfakes or many other forms of harmful AI-generated content.

Remaining Deepfake Bills in Missouri

Missouri's Legislature has considered several further bills aimed at the remaining gaps, including political deepfakes and additional civil remedies.

The Taylor Swift Act (SB 1117)

Senate Bill 1117, commonly known as the "Taylor Swift Act," is Missouri's most prominent deepfake bill of the 2026 session. Introduced by Senator Fitzwater, the bill is named after pop star Taylor Swift, who became a victim of nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images in January 2024.

What the Bill Would Do

SB 1117 would establish both civil and criminal penalties for creating or sharing nonconsensual intimate digital depictions. Specifically, the bill creates a cause of action against anyone who discloses a digital depiction of someone under 18, or an intimate digital depiction of any individual, when the person knows or recklessly disregards that the depicted individual has not consented.

Penalties Under SB 1117

The bill was voted do pass by the Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, and that is the last action recorded on the Senate's official bill tracker. SB 1117 has not received a Senate floor vote and has not become law, so its penalties and civil remedies are not currently available.

Civil Remedies

An important feature of SB 1117 is its civil cause of action. If enacted, victims of sexually explicit deepfakes could pursue financial compensation for damages, including emotional distress. For AI-generated depictions of children and teens, a legal guardian would be able to file suit even if the depiction was not sexual in nature.

AI in Elections: SB 509 and SB 1012

Missouri has introduced two bills targeting AI use in political communications.

SB 509: AI Disclosure in Elections (2025)

Senate Bill 509 would create new provisions for the use of artificial intelligence in elections. The bill requires specific disclaimers for political communications that use AI-generated content under certain conditions:

• Depicting a real person doing something they did not actually do
• Manipulating a candidate's voice or actions to make them appear to say or do something they did not
• Creating content intended to harm a candidate or mislead voters

The required disclaimer must clearly state that the content was created with generative AI and is not authentic. The bill specifies how the disclaimer must appear across different media types, including print, television, internet, and audio communications.

As of February 2025, SB 509 was referred to the Senate Local Government, Elections and Pensions Committee.

SB 1012: Artificially Generated Content (2026)

Senate Bill 1012 takes a broader approach, creating new provisions relating to artificially generated content with penalty provisions. The bill would amend chapters 130 and 573 RSMo to address AI-generated content in both electoral and other contexts.

The legislation would require watermarks or disclaimers on AI-generated content and target deceptive use of AI to create false depictions of real people. Anyone creating AI content depicting a real person would need to obtain that person's consent, with exceptions for parody and satire.

The AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act

One of Missouri's most distinctive AI proposals is HB 1462, the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, introduced by Representative Phil Amato of St. Louis. The bill was refiled for the 2026 session as HB 1769.

Key Provisions

The bill makes several sweeping declarations about AI's legal status:

• AI systems are not sentient beings and cannot be granted legal personhood
• AI cannot get married, own property, or serve on corporate boards of directors
• AI cannot serve as a manager or director of any company
• All assets associated with an AI system belong to the humans or organizations responsible for its development, deployment, or operation

Liability Framework

The bill places full legal responsibility for AI actions on human owners, developers, and manufacturers. If an AI system causes harm, liability rests with human actors. The bill includes provisions that can pierce corporate veils in cases of intentional evasion of responsibility.

Developers must prioritize safety, conduct risk assessments, and cannot use labels like "ethically trained" to avoid liability. The bill also defines "emergent properties," addressing the concept of unanticipated behaviors that AI systems may exhibit.

Why This Bill Matters

While the idea of banning AI from marriage may sound unusual, the bill addresses a real legal question. As AI systems become more sophisticated, questions about their legal status will only intensify. HB 1462/1769 would preemptively clarify that in Missouri, AI tools remain tools, and their creators and operators bear responsibility for what those tools do.

AI and Mental Health: SB 1444

Senate Bill 1444 addresses a growing concern: AI chatbots that present themselves as mental health professionals.

What the Bill Prohibits

The bill provides that no person or entity that develops or deploys AI in Missouri shall advertise or represent to the public that the AI:

• Is or is able to act as a mental health professional
• Is capable of providing therapy services
• Is capable of providing psychotherapy services
• Is capable of providing a mental health diagnosis

Enforcement

A violation under SB 1444 would be considered an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Attorney General would have enforcement authority, and any individual could report violations. If the Attorney General finds a violation occurred, they must commence a civil action.

Related bills HB 2318 and HB 2368 propose similar protections, reflecting bipartisan concern about AI overreach in mental health services.

The Withdrawn Attorney General Algorithmic Choice Rule

Missouri's attorney general's office once proposed a rule aimed at AI-driven algorithmic curation. It never took effect, and it is not a compliance obligation today.

The Proposal

In January 2025, then-Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced a proposed regulation requiring Big Tech companies to offer users a choice of content moderation algorithms. The office called it the first rule of its kind in the nation.

What It Would Have Required

As proposed, social media platforms would have had to:

• Provide users with an option to use the platform's own content moderation algorithm OR choose from an independent content moderator
• Offer this choice upon account activation, with no default selection
• Renew the opportunity to choose at least every six months
• Not favor their own algorithm over competitors by limiting a third-party moderator's functionality

Platforms could have set access limits on third-party moderators only to the extent necessary to protect trade secrets, proprietary processes, privacy information, and platform security.

Why It Is Not Binding

After the notice and comment period closed, the attorney general's office withdrew the proposed rule rather than adopting it, and it never took effect. No content moderation or algorithmic choice rule appears among the attorney general's chapters in Title 15, Division 60 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations. Social media platforms therefore have no algorithmic-choice duty under Missouri law, and the January 2025 announcement creates no compliance obligation. Andrew Bailey no longer holds the office; Catherine Hanaway is Missouri's attorney general. A future attorney general could propose a revised version of the rule.

AI in Employment

Missouri has not enacted any laws specifically regulating AI in hiring, automated employment screening, or workplace decision-making. There is no Missouri equivalent to:

• New York City's Local Law 144 (bias audits for automated employment tools)
• Illinois's AI Video Interview Act
• Colorado's comprehensive AI law covering employment decisions
• California's proposed and enacted AI employment regulations

However, Missouri's Human Rights Act and federal anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, ADA, ADEA) apply to employment decisions regardless of whether they are made by humans or AI systems. The EEOC has issued guidance confirming that employers are liable for discriminatory outcomes from AI hiring tools.

No pending 2026 bills specifically target AI in employment decisions, though the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act's broad liability framework would apply to AI systems used in the workplace.

AI in Healthcare

Beyond the mental health provisions of SB 1444, Missouri has not enacted healthcare-specific AI regulations. The state has no equivalent to laws in other states requiring disclosure of AI use in medical diagnoses or prohibiting AI-only treatment decisions.

Federal regulations, including HIPAA and FDA oversight of AI-enabled medical devices, provide the primary regulatory framework for AI in Missouri's healthcare sector.

How Federal AI Policy Affects Missouri

With limited state-level AI regulation, federal policy plays an outsized role in Missouri.

Trump Executive Order 14179

President Trump's Executive Order 14179 (January 23, 2025) revoked the Biden administration's EO 14110 and adopted a deregulatory approach prioritizing American AI innovation and competitiveness. This aligns with Missouri's historically business-friendly regulatory environment.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 2025, remains important for Missouri even after the state enacted its own intimate-deepfake statute. This federal law criminalizes nonconsensual intimate deepfakes nationwide with up to 3 years imprisonment, and it covers conduct occurring before Missouri's RSMo 573.570 and 573.575 took effect on August 28, 2026.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) was signed into law on July 4, 2025, as Public Law 119-21. An earlier version would have imposed a moratorium on state AI legislation, but that provision was stripped from the bill before final Senate passage and is not part of the enacted law. Missouri's pending AI bills and future state-level AI regulation are not preempted by this Act.

What Missouri's Gaps Mean for Residents and Businesses

Missouri's lack of AI-specific laws creates a distinct legal environment.

For Individuals

Missouri residents who become victims of AI-generated intimate images now have a state deepfake statute, RSMo 573.570 and 573.575, in force since August 28, 2026, in addition to federal law (the TAKE IT DOWN Act), general state tort claims (defamation, invasion of privacy), and the MMPA's consumer protection framework. For conduct the state sections do not reach, such as political deepfakes, those federal and common-law alternatives remain the primary options.

For Businesses

Missouri businesses deploying AI face fewer state-specific compliance requirements than businesses in heavily regulated states like Colorado, California, or Illinois. However, businesses should not interpret the absence of state AI law as a license to deploy AI without safeguards. Federal laws, the MMPA, and anti-discrimination statutes all apply. Businesses operating across state lines must also comply with AI laws in other jurisdictions.

Preparing for Coming Changes

Given the volume of AI bills in the 2025 and 2026 sessions, Missouri businesses should prepare for new regulations. Companies would be wise to conduct internal audits of AI systems, establish AI governance policies, and monitor the Legislature's progress on the Taylor Swift Act, the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act, and election-related AI disclosure requirements.

More Missouri Laws

• Missouri Data Privacy Laws
• Missouri Whistleblower Laws
• Missouri Employee Monitoring Laws