Ohio AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Ohio regulates AI primarily through House Bill 96, signed in June 2025, which made the state the first in the nation to require K-12 schools to adopt AI usage policies. Administrative policy IT-17 governs state agency AI use, while deepfake-specific legislation remains pending.

Overview of Ohio AI Laws

Ohio occupies an unusual position in America's AI regulatory landscape. While the state has taken notable action on AI in education and state government operations, it has not enacted deepfake-specific legislation.

Ballotpedia's survey of state deepfake legislation, published in July 2025, counted Ohio alongside Alaska and Missouri as the states without an enacted deepfake law, a distinction that has drawn increasing attention from lawmakers and advocacy groups. Counts like that one move as other legislatures act, so treat it as a snapshot of its publication date rather than a standing fact. Ohio has multiple pending bills that would address the gap, and Governor Mike DeWine has publicly called for AI legislation in his 2026 State of the State address.

Ohio's most significant enacted AI law is House Bill 96, whose AI mandate is codified at Ohio Revised Code Section 3301.24. It made Ohio the first state in the nation to require AI policies in all K-12 public schools. The state has also established an administrative AI governance framework for state agencies through IT-17.

This article covers Ohio's enacted and pending AI legislation, its deepfake regulatory gap, healthcare AI proposals, and state government AI governance. Bill statuses change frequently, so confirm the current position of any pending bill on the Ohio Legislature's website, and consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Ohio's Deepfake Gap: No Enacted Deepfake Law

Ohio has not enacted legislation specifically addressing deepfakes, whether in political communications, nonconsensual intimate images, or AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Ballotpedia's tracking has counted Ohio among the few states without such a law.

What This Means in Practice

Without a specific deepfake law, Ohio victims of deepfake-related harms must rely on existing criminal statutes that were not designed to address AI-generated content. This creates several challenges:

• Nonconsensual intimate deepfakes: Victims may need to pursue claims under general harassment, stalking, or cyberbullying statutes, which may not adequately address AI-generated content
• AI-generated child sexual abuse material: Federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 2256) addresses computer-generated child pornography. No Ohio statute names AI-generated or computer-generated material, but Ohio's pandering obscenity statute is not written to require a real, identifiable child, as explained in the next section
• Political deepfakes: Ohio has no disclosure requirement for AI-generated political advertising or communications
• Identity fraud via AI: Ohio's existing identity fraud statutes were not written to address AI-generated replicas of real people

No AI-Specific CSAM Statute, But Existing Obscenity Law May Still Reach It

Ohio is among the states that have not passed a statute specifically naming AI-generated child sexual abuse material, a gap tracked by child safety advocates and cited by Governor DeWine in calling for legislation.

That gap is narrower than it first appears, and it is worth stating precisely, because "no AI-specific statute" is not the same thing as "AI-generated material is legal in Ohio." Ohio's pandering obscenity statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.321, does not on its face require the depicted minor to be a real, identifiable child.

Division (A)(1) prohibits creating, reproducing, or publishing "any obscene material that has a minor or impaired person as one of its participants or portrayed observers." Division (B)(3) then provides that "the trier of fact may infer that a person in the material or performance involved is a minor or impaired person if the material or performance, through its title, text, visual representation, or otherwise, represents or depicts the person as a minor or impaired person."

The practical consequence is that a purely AI-generated depiction can fall within the statute's text if it meets Ohio's obscenity standard. The real limit is that standard. Material that is not legally obscene is not reached by Section 2907.321, which is why proposals like SB 163 would create a categorical prohibition rather than one that turns on an obscenity finding. Whether any particular image qualifies is a question for a prosecutor and a court, so nothing here should be read as a conclusion about a specific file.

Pending Deepfake Legislation: SB 163

Senate Bill 163, introduced on April 2, 2025, represents Ohio's most comprehensive effort to address deepfakes. It has not been enacted. A bill's chamber, committee, and text all change as it moves, so check the Legislature's bill page for its current status before relying on any summary of it, including this one.

Watermarking Requirements

SB 163 would require certain AI-generated content to include watermarks or other identifiers showing that the material was artificially created. This requirement aims to help courts, law enforcement, and the public distinguish real media from fabricated content.

AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material Provisions

The bill includes significant provisions addressing AI-generated CSAM. It would criminalize creating or distributing AI-generated obscene material depicting a minor, and separately, and at a lower level, possessing it. Penalty levels are among the provisions most often changed by amendment, so consult the Legislature's bill page for the operative text rather than a secondhand description.

The material does not need to depict an actual child. If the image or video reasonably appears to involve a minor, criminal liability may attach.

Identity Fraud Expansion

SB 163 would expand Ohio's identity fraud statutes to cover unauthorized AI replicas of real people. The bill bars several uses of AI for identity fraud, including:

• Using deepfake pornography
• Creating any AI depiction intended to harm another person's reputation
• Fabricating a person's image or voice to elicit a financial decision from a third party

Civil Remedies

The bill allows victims of deepfakes to pursue civil remedies, including statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation in certain circumstances.

Additional Pending Deepfake Bills

HB 185: Name, Image, and Likeness Protection

House Bill 185 would regulate AI content by protecting the name, image, and likeness of Ohio residents. The bill takes a broad approach that covers AI manipulation, Photoshop, and any type of image manipulation.

Key provisions include:

• Pornographic deepfakes and deepfakes of children are completely banned, with or without a disclaimer
• Creating or distributing malicious AI content to extort the depicted individual is a third-degree felony
• Non-pornographic malicious deepfakes (content meant to harm someone's image) are permitted only with a clear watermark indicating artificial manipulation

The bill has faced opposition from the Motion Picture Association of America, which argues it could restrict freedom of speech. Enforcement challenges have also been raised as a concern.

AI in Education: House Bill 96

House Bill 96, signed into law by Governor DeWine on June 30, 2025, is Ohio's most significant enacted AI legislation. The law makes Ohio the first state in the nation to require all K-12 public schools to adopt AI policies. Its AI mandate is codified at Ohio Revised Code Section 3301.24, titled "Artificial intelligence policy," a short two-subsection provision.

State-Level Requirements

Section 3301.24(A) directs the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW) to develop a model policy on the use of artificial intelligence in schools, one that addresses "appropriate use of artificial intelligence by students and staff for educational purposes." The statute set a deadline of December 31, 2025 for that model policy.

The model policy addresses:

• Use of AI by students for educational purposes
• Use of AI by staff for instructional and administrative purposes
• Academic integrity concerns related to AI tools
• Data privacy protections for student information used in AI systems
• Equity considerations in AI deployment

District-Level Adoption Deadline

Section 3301.24(B) requires that, not later than July 1, 2026, "each school district, community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code shall adopt a policy on the use of artificial intelligence." The statute expressly allows a district or school to adopt the department's model policy instead of writing its own.

Schools have flexibility in how they comply:

• Adopt the ODEW model policy as written
• Create a local policy based on the model
• Develop an entirely independent policy that meets the law's requirements

Community College AI Grants

HB 96 also created the Artificial Intelligence Integration in Community Colleges Pilot Grant Program. The program offers:

Significance

Ohio's approach to AI in education is notable for being prescriptive without being overly restrictive. The law requires schools to have a policy but does not mandate that schools use AI or teach specific AI curricula. This gives local districts the flexibility to address AI in ways that suit their communities and resources.

Healthcare AI Proposals

Ohio has not enacted healthcare-specific AI legislation, but several bills are under consideration.

HB 525: AI in Therapy Services

House Bill 525 addresses the use of AI in therapeutic settings. The bill would:

• Prohibit licensed therapists from using AI to make therapeutic decisions
• Ban AI from directly interacting with clients in "therapeutic communication"
• Permit AI use for supplementary support tasks (excluding therapeutic communication)
• Require written informed consent from patients regarding AI use
• Mandate compliance with HIPAA when AI tools are used

The bill reflects growing concern about AI chatbots being used in mental health contexts. Sponsors cited cases where AI chatbots provided potentially harmful therapeutic advice as motivation for the legislation.

HB 524: AI Chatbot Safety for Minors

House Bill 524 would impose penalties on companies that develop or deploy AI models that encourage self-harm or harming others. The bill was motivated by a case involving a 16-year-old California boy who died by suicide, with his parents alleging the AI chatbot he interacted with contributed to his death.

SB 164: AI in Health Insurance Decisions

Senate Bill 164, along with its House companion HB 579, would:

• Prohibit health insurers from making coverage decisions solely through AI
• Require insurers to submit annual reports to the state about their AI use
• Ensure human oversight of AI-driven coverage determinations

These bills mirror legislation enacted in other states like North Dakota's SB 2280, which prohibits AI-only prior authorization denials.

AI Personhood Ban: House Bill 469

House Bill 469, introduced by Representative Thaddeus Claggett on September 23, 2025, takes a unique approach to AI regulation by declaring AI systems nonsentient and prohibiting them from obtaining legal personhood.

Key Provisions

The bill establishes several prohibitions for AI systems:

Liability Framework

Under HB 469, any direct or indirect harm caused by an AI tool is the legal responsibility of the user or the developer. The bill also requires:

• Owners or manufacturers of AI systems that cause significant harm, property damage, or death must promptly notify authorities
• Such incidents are subject to investigation
• AI itself cannot be held liable; only the humans or companies behind it

Industry Reaction

The bill has generated significant debate. TechNet, a technology industry group, argues the bill's definition of AI is too broad, potentially covering "any data-driven or rules-based software," and warns that its liability provisions pose "an existential risk" for developers. The Alliance for Secure AI praised the measure, saying it closes "a dangerous loophole where a corporation could deploy an AI system, have it cause financial or physical harm, and then claim it is not responsible."

State Government AI Governance

IT-17: Administrative AI Policy

Ohio's Department of Administrative Services established IT-17, an administrative policy governing the use of AI across state government. The policy provides planning, implementation, privacy, and governance requirements for AI use.

Key elements of IT-17 include:

• Broad authorization for the use and implementation of AI in state government
• A framework protecting Ohioans' data
• Emphasis on integrity and quality of information generated by AI solutions
• Privacy safeguards for state data used in AI systems

Multi-Agency AI Council

IT-17 established a multi-agency AI Council to oversee statewide application and usage of AI solutions. The council includes:

• Professionals with legal expertise
• Data analytics specialists
• Technology officers
• Representatives from the Governor's office
• DAS representatives
• Agency business representatives

The AI Council's activities include:

• Creating a statewide "sandbox environment" to investigate generative AI applications
• Examining the impact of AI on workforces, Ohioans, and businesses
• Establishing legal requirements for use of third-party AI services
• Strengthening the Ohio workforce through AI integration

Ohio's Government AI Blueprint

Ohio has developed what NASCIO (National Association of State Chief Information Officers) has recognized as a blueprint for statewide AI innovation. The framework emphasizes using AI to streamline state code, with an AI tool that has helped identify outdated, conflicting, or redundant content, saving an estimated $44 million and 58,000 work hours over a decade.

AI in Employment

Ohio has not enacted specific legislation governing AI in employment and hiring decisions. The state has no pending AI employment bills comparable to those in states like Illinois, Colorado, or New York City.

Current Protections

Ohio employers using AI hiring tools must comply with existing federal anti-discrimination laws:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
• The Americans with Disabilities Act
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act
• EEOC guidance on AI in employment decisions

AI Personhood Bill Implications

HB 469's provisions regarding AI decision-making roles could indirectly affect employment AI use. By prohibiting AI from holding a "decision-making role within a company," the bill could be interpreted to limit the extent to which AI systems make autonomous employment decisions, though this interpretation remains debated.

Governor DeWine's AI Agenda

In his 2026 State of the State address, Governor Mike DeWine called on the Ohio legislature to pass AI-related legislation addressing three priorities:

1. AI-generated child exploitation: Making it illegal to possess, create, or distribute AI-generated child sexual abuse material
2. AI chatbot safety: Holding technology companies accountable when AI chatbots encourage children to harm themselves or others
3. Parental controls: Requiring cell phone and technology companies to automatically implement parental control features

These priorities align with pending bills SB 163, HB 524, and related legislation. The Governor's public endorsement signals that AI legislation is likely to advance in the current legislative session.

Federal AI Policy and Ohio

Executive Order 14365

President Trump's Executive Order 14365, signed December 11, 2025, establishes federal AI policy that intersects with state regulatory efforts. The order creates a task force to challenge what it characterizes as burdensome state AI regulations and calls for a legislative recommendation for a federal AI framework.

Ohio's Position

Ohio's current position is somewhat insulated from federal preemption concerns because the state has enacted relatively few AI-specific laws. The pending legislation, particularly SB 163 and HB 469, could face scrutiny depending on how the federal framework develops.

Education AI (HB 96): This enacted law governs state educational institutions, an area of traditional state authority unlikely to face federal preemption.

State government AI (IT-17): Administrative policies governing state agency AI use fall within Ohio's sovereign authority over its own operations.

Pending deepfake bills: If enacted, these would need to be evaluated against any federal AI framework, though child safety and criminal law provisions typically fall within protected state authority.

Senator Husted's Federal AI Role

Ohio's connection to federal AI policy is strengthened by Senator Jon Husted, who has introduced federal legislation leveraging AI to increase efficiency within the federal code. Husted's approach mirrors Ohio's own success in using AI to streamline state law.

Looking Ahead: Ohio's AI Regulatory Future

Ohio is at a crossroads in AI regulation. While it has shown leadership in AI education policy and state government AI governance, the absence of an enacted deepfake statute places it among a shrinking minority of states.

Several factors will shape Ohio's AI regulatory future:

Governor's push: Governor DeWine's explicit call for AI legislation in his State of the State address creates political momentum for action.

Multiple pending bills: With SB 163, HB 185, HB 469, HB 524, HB 525, and SB 164 all pending, Ohio has no shortage of AI proposals. The question is which will advance far enough to reach the Governor's desk, and the Legislature's bill pages are the place to check where each one currently sits.

Bipartisan support: AI regulation has drawn bipartisan support in Ohio, with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers sponsoring AI bills. This cross-party interest suggests that meaningful legislation could advance.

Industry opposition: Technology industry groups have actively opposed some proposals, particularly HB 469's broad AI definition and liability provisions. Balancing innovation with regulation will be a key challenge.

Education leadership: Having enacted the nation's first mandatory AI school policy, Ohio has established itself as a leader in AI education governance. This leadership could extend to other areas of AI regulation.

More Ohio Laws

Explore other Ohio law topics on Recording Law:

• Ohio Recording Laws
• Ohio Data Privacy Laws
• Ohio Background Check Laws
• Ohio Biometric Privacy Laws
• Ohio Data Breach Notification Laws