Washington AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

Washington regulates AI through a series of targeted laws enacted between 2023 and 2026. The state has created a candidate remedy for election deepfakes under SB 5152, restricted fabricated intimate images, required AI content provenance disclosures, and enacted one of the country's first dedicated AI chatbot safety laws for minors through HB 2225, which does not take effect until January 1, 2027. A bill that would limit employer use of automated decision systems, HB 1672, remains stalled in committee and has not been enacted.

Overview of Washington AI Laws

Washington state has emerged as one of the most active AI regulators in the country. The state has enacted multiple AI-related laws since 2023, addressing election deepfakes, nonconsensual intimate images, forged digital likenesses, AI content transparency, chatbot safety for minors, and employer use of AI-driven monitoring tools. Governor Bob Ferguson's signature on two major AI bills in March 2026 continued a pattern of steady legislative action that distinguishes Washington from many other states.

Washington's approach has been to target specific AI harms through focused legislation rather than passing a single comprehensive AI framework. Combined with the work of the state's AI Task Force, administered through the Attorney General's office, this incremental strategy has produced one of the broadest sets of enacted AI protections in the United States.

This article covers Washington's enacted and pending AI legislation, the AI Task Force's recommendations, and how federal policy intersects with the state's regulatory approach. This information is current as of March 2026, but you should consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Election Deepfake Disclosure Law (2023)

Washington was among the first states to address AI-generated deepfakes in elections. In 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5152, sponsored by Senator Javier Valdez, creating a candidate remedy when manipulated or synthetic media is used in paid election communications, with a clear disclosure available as a defense.

Definition of Synthetic Media

The law defines "synthetic media" as an image, audio, or video recording of a person's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been manipulated to create a realistic but false representation. To qualify, the media must appear to a reasonable person as a real representation of an individual but did not actually occur, and it must cause a reasonable person to have a fundamentally different understanding of the content compared to the unaltered version.

What the Law Actually Requires

The statute is codified at RCW 29B.35.010, recodified from its original location at RCW 42.62.020 when the Legislature reorganized the campaign finance code into Title 29B RCW. It does not impose a general disclosure duty on everyone who shares synthetic media. Instead, it gives a candidate whose appearance, action, or speech is altered a civil action against the sponsor of an "electioneering communication" containing that synthetic media, and it makes a proper disclosure an affirmative defense under subsection (4) rather than a mandate.

"Electioneering communication" is a narrow term. Under RCW 29B.10.220, it reaches broadcast, cable, satellite television, radio, digital, mailed, billboard, newspaper, or periodical communications that clearly identify a candidate for state, local, or judicial office, are published within 60 days before an election, and have a fair market value or cost of $1,000 or more. Someone who forwards an unpaid deepfake meme is outside the statute entirely.

A sponsor that includes the disclosure has an affirmative defense. The required text is "This (image/video/audio) has been manipulated," formatted as follows:

Enforcement

A candidate whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or other equitable relief prohibiting publication of the media, and may bring an action for general or special damages against the sponsor. The court may also award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Secretary of State Guidance

The Washington Secretary of State's office has actively warned voters about deepfake risks and promoted awareness of the disclosure law, particularly ahead of the 2024 election cycle.

Fabricated Intimate Images Law (2024)

In March 2024, Governor Inslee signed legislation creating criminal penalties for the distribution of AI-fabricated intimate images. This law directly addresses deepfake pornography, adding the offense of "Disclosing Fabricated Intimate Images" to the Washington criminal code.

Criminal Penalties

The law creates tiered penalties based on offense history:

Civil Remedies

Beyond criminal penalties, the law also allows victims to pursue civil lawsuits against individuals who create or distribute fabricated intimate images without consent. This dual criminal-civil approach gives victims multiple avenues for seeking justice.

Coverage Under RCW 9A.86

The provisions are codified in RCW Chapter 9A.86 (Disclosing Intimate Images), which broadly prohibits the distribution of intimate images without consent.

HB 1205: Forged Digital Likenesses (2025)

Governor Ferguson signed House Bill 1205 on April 16, 2025, expanding Washington's deepfake protections beyond intimate images to cover all forged digital likenesses. The law took effect on July 27, 2025.

Definition

The law defines a "forged digital likeness" as a digital visual or audio representation of a real person that has been artificially created or manipulated to be indistinguishable from genuine content, misrepresents the individual's appearance or conduct, and is likely to deceive a reasonable person.

Criminal Provisions

Under RCW 9A.60.045, it is a gross misdemeanor to knowingly distribute a forged digital likeness with intent to defraud, harass, threaten, intimidate, or for any other unlawful purpose, when the distributor knows or reasonably should know the likeness is not genuine.

Free Expression Protections

HB 1205 includes robust carve-outs for protected speech. The law does not prohibit distribution of digital likenesses for cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest purposes, including artistic works, commentary, satire, and parody. It is also a defense to prosecution if the distributor places a disclaimer on the content identifying the digital likeness as fake.

Technology Provider Protections

Internet service providers, mobile telecommunications services, and telecommunications networks are shielded from liability for hosting or transmitting forged digital likenesses created by third parties, as long as they did not intentionally facilitate the creation and dissemination.

HB 1170: AI Content Disclosure (2026)

House Bill 1170, signed by Governor Ferguson on March 24, 2026, requires AI operators to inform users when content is developed or modified using artificial intelligence. The law was crafted at the Governor's request to combat AI-generated misinformation.

Covered Providers

The law applies to "covered providers," defined as AI companies with more than 1,000,000 monthly users in Washington. This threshold ensures the law targets major AI platforms while exempting smaller developers.

Key Requirements

Provenance data and watermarking: Covered providers must include provenance data, such as watermarks or metadata meeting a recognized technical standard (for example the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity specification), in any image, video, or audio content their generative AI system creates or materially alters. This requirement does not apply to minor modifications like resizing, cropping, or format conversion.

Government agency notification: A government agency that makes an AI system available to interact with consumers must clearly disclose, before or at the time of interaction, that the consumer is interacting with an AI system. This disclosure duty applies to government agencies, not to private covered providers generally.

Enforcement

Violations of the provenance and disclosure requirements are deemed to affect the public interest and constitute an unfair or deceptive act under Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Enforcement is reserved to the Attorney General: RCW 19.435.030(3) states that "only the attorney general can bring an action under the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW, pursuant to this section."

Effective Date

The law takes effect on February 1, 2027, per Section 9 of the certified session law (Chapter 167, Laws of 2026), giving covered providers time to develop and implement the required watermarking and provenance systems.

HB 2225: AI Chatbot Safety for Minors (2026)

House Bill 2225, also signed on March 24, 2026, places Washington among the first states with a dedicated AI chatbot safety law aimed at protecting minors from harmful and manipulative AI content. It is not the first: California chaptered a comparable companion-chatbot statute, SB 243 (Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025), on October 13, 2025. Washington's law is codified as chapter 19.440 RCW.

Effective Date

None of the duties described below are in force yet. Every section of chapter 19.440 RCW, from RCW 19.440.010 through RCW 19.440.060, carries the notation "(Effective January 1, 2027.)" on the official RCW site. Operators have no obligations under this chapter before that date.

Disclosure Requirements

Beginning January 1, 2027, the law establishes mandatory human/AI disclosure schedules. The three-hour cadence applies to every user of an AI companion chatbot, not just adults; the hourly cadence is an additional requirement that applies when the user is a minor:

Protections for Minors

When a chatbot operator knows the user is a minor, or when the chatbot is directed at minors, the operator will be required to:

• Implement reasonable measures to prevent generating sexually explicit content or suggestive dialogue
• Prohibit manipulative engagement techniques, including prompting minors to return for emotional support or companionship
• Block excessive praise designed to foster emotional attachment or prolong use
• Prevent soliciting gift-giving, in-app purchases, or other spending to maintain the AI relationship

Self-Harm and Crisis Protocols

Once the chapter takes effect, AI chatbot operators must implement protocols that:

• Prevent chatbots from encouraging or providing information on suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders
• Flag conversations that reference self-harm
• Connect users experiencing crisis with mental health services

Enforcement

RCW 19.440.060 declares that a violation of the chapter is "an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce" for the purpose of applying Washington's Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. That supports Attorney General enforcement, and it may support a private Consumer Protection Act claim, but the chapter creates no express private cause of action. A private plaintiff would still have to prove every element of a Consumer Protection Act claim, including injury to business or property and causation.

SB 5984: AI Companion Chatbot Regulation (Pending)

Senate Bill 5984, requested by Governor Ferguson, passed the Washington Senate by a 38 to 11 vote. The House Technology, Economic Development & Veterans Committee approved it with amendments on February 24, 2026, and it was returned to the Senate Rules Committee for third reading (concurrence) on March 12, 2026, where it remains as of this writing.

Key Provisions

SB 5984 would require chatbots to give users hourly reminders that they are communicating with AI rather than a human. Developers would also be required to implement suicidal ideation detection and prevention protocols and regularly report data on compliance and incidents.

Relationship to HB 2225

SB 5984 and HB 2225 address overlapping concerns about AI chatbot safety. While HB 2225 has been signed into law, SB 5984 could add additional requirements or reinforce existing protections if it completes the legislative process.

AI Task Force: ESSB 5838 (2024)

The Washington State Legislature established the Artificial Intelligence Task Force through ESSB 5838 in 2024. Administered by the Attorney General's office, the Task Force is charged with evaluating current and potential uses of AI in Washington and recommending regulatory and legislative actions.

Reports and Timeline

ESSB 5838 requires the Task Force to produce three reports:

Eight Key Recommendations

The Task Force's interim report delivered eight policy recommendations to the Governor and legislature:

1. Adopt NIST ethical and trustworthy AI principles as the guiding framework for AI development and use in Washington
2. Require AI developers to publicly disclose information about datasets used for training AI models
3. Mandate that developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems implement and publicly disclose robust AI governance frameworks and risk management strategies
4. Ensure that clinical decisions involving health services are made by qualified professionals, even when AI tools are used
5. Increase investments to improve K-12 STEM education and integrate AI tools
6. Expand access to broadband to support AI adoption statewide
7. Address the regulatory gap created by the federal government's "hands-off approach" to AI
8. Balance innovation with protection of individual rights, privacy, and economic well-being

Significance

The Task Force's interim report notably stated that the federal government has largely maintained a "hands-off approach" to the AI sector, creating a "crucial regulatory gap that leaves Washingtonians vulnerable." This framing has informed Washington's more proactive approach to AI regulation compared to many other states.

AI in Employment: HB 1672 (Pending, Not Enacted)

Washington lawmakers have proposed significant legislation regulating employer use of AI and electronic monitoring through HB 1672, but the bill has not been enacted. It remains in the House Appropriations Committee as of this writing, having been reintroduced by resolution for the 2026 session on January 12, 2026 with no further floor action since.

What HB 1672 Would Require

As introduced, HB 1672 would require employers to provide detailed advance written notice to employees before implementing any electronic monitoring, specifying the form of monitoring, its purpose, and how collected data will be used. It would ban several employer monitoring practices, including tracking employees during off-duty hours, using facial recognition technology in the workplace, and monitoring private spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms.

The bill would also place limits on employer use of automated decision systems: barring employers from using automated decision system outputs regarding an employee's physical or mental health in employment-related decisions, barring predictions about an employee's emotions or personality, and requiring human oversight and impact assessments. It would give the Department of Labor and Industries authority to investigate complaints, with civil penalties of up to $10,000 for violations, plus anti-retaliation protections for employees.

None of these requirements are currently Washington law. Employers should watch the bill's status rather than treat these provisions as binding.

Federal AI Policy and Washington

Executive Order 14365

Federal AI policy under Executive Order 14365 (December 2025) creates potential tension with Washington's proactive regulatory approach. The executive order establishes mechanisms to challenge state AI laws and favors lighter-touch federal regulation.

Washington's Response

Washington's AI Task Force has explicitly acknowledged this tension, noting in its interim report that the federal government's "hands-off approach" creates regulatory gaps. This perspective contrasts with the EO 14365 framework, which views state regulation as a potential obstacle to AI innovation.

Areas of Overlap

Content disclosure (HB 1170): The AI disclosure and watermarking requirements could face scrutiny under federal preemption arguments, though consumer protection has traditionally been a state prerogative.

Child safety (HB 2225): AI chatbot protections for minors fall squarely within the protected child safety carve-out recognized by EO 14365.

Employment regulation (HB 1672): Workplace regulation is traditionally a state function, and if enacted, Washington's proposed employment AI restrictions would likely be defensible under existing state authority. As of this writing, HB 1672 remains pending and has not been enacted.

Deepfake laws: Washington's layered approach to deepfake regulation (election, intimate images, general forged likenesses) targets specific criminal conduct rather than AI development broadly, reducing vulnerability to preemption challenges.

Washington's AI Regulatory Landscape

Washington's approach to AI regulation stands out for several reasons:

Layered deepfake protections: The state has built a comprehensive framework addressing deepfakes across elections (2023), intimate images (2024), and general forged likenesses (2025), each targeting distinct harms with tailored legal tools.

Early mover on chatbot safety: HB 2225 puts Washington among the first states with an enacted AI chatbot safety law aimed at minors, following California's SB 243, which was chaptered on October 13, 2025. Washington's chapter does not take effect until January 1, 2027.

Task Force-driven policy: The AI Task Force's systematic study and recommendations provide an evidence-based foundation for legislation, connecting technical expertise with legislative action.

Consumer Protection Act enforcement: Washington consistently ties its AI regulations to the Consumer Protection Act. HB 1170 reserves enforcement to the Attorney General, and HB 2225 declares violations unfair or deceptive without creating an express private cause of action.

Proactive stance on federal gaps: Unlike states that have deferred to federal AI policy, Washington has explicitly identified federal inaction as a problem and moved to fill regulatory gaps at the state level.

More Washington Laws

Explore other Washington law topics on Recording Law:

• Washington Recording Laws
• Washington Data Privacy Laws
• Washington Whistleblower Laws
• Washington Sexting Laws