Florida and the Future of AI: Targeted Laws in a Rapidly Growing Tech Landscape

Introduction

Florida has a diverse and rapidly expanding economy driven by, among other sectors, tourism, aerospace and defence, financial services, and logistics. Florida is also a growing centre for clean energy and technology, ranking it among the top US states for solar capacity. While Florida was not one of the first states to pass comprehensive AI regulation, nor is it home to well-known frontier AI foundation model labs, the Sunshine State has nevertheless made meaningful contributions to the national conversation on AI trends and policy. Even without an omnibus law, Florida regulators have passed targeted measures aimed at tackling high-priority issues, such as non-consensual deepfakes, election integrity and infrastructure, setting precedent on many of the concerns animating policy discussions and legislative trends nationwide.

Legal developments and issue-specific Florida AI legislation

Political and election-related synthetic media

AI-generated synthetic media, especially political and election-related content, has become a key focus of many state AI laws across the US, with nearly half of all states having enacted or proposed related legislation. Florida is no exception. On 26 April 2024, Governor DeSantis signed HB 919 into law, with the measure entering into effect later that year. The law requires certain political advertisements and electioneering communications “created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence” to include a specific statutory disclaimer when the content is intended to “injure a candidate or to deceive regarding a ballot issue” or other political communication. (Fla. Stat. Section 106.145(2).) Entities that fail to include the required disclosure potentially face a first-degree misdemeanour, which is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to USD1,000. They may also face civil penalties enforced by the Florida Elections Commission. (See Fla. Stat. Section 106.145(4).)

Deepfakes and non-consensual intimate content

Similarly, AI-generated deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery have become a top priority for policymakers and regulators, with more than half of US States having enacted or proposed legislation addressing these issues. In Florida, there are several laws that address the topic, including Brooke’s Law, which was signed into law by Governor DeSantis on 10 June 2025. The law targets AI-generated “deepfake” sexual content by requiring “covered platforms,” including “website[s], online service[s], online application[s], or mobile application[s],” to implement and clearly maintain a process that allows individuals to request the removal of altered sexual depictions shared without their consent and “make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies” of the material. (See Fla. Stat. Sections 836.13(8)(a), 836.13(8)(d).) Platforms that comply in good faith are afforded statutory immunity, while failure to reasonably comply may constitute a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In addition to Brooke’s Law, HB 757 criminalises the production, solicitation, or possession of AI-generated sexual depictions of individuals without their consent. The bill, which came into effect on 1 October 2025, broadly defines image generation as the “means to create, alter, adapt, or modify any image by electronic, mechanical, or other computer-generated means.” (See Fla. Stat. Section 836.13(1)(c).)

Data centres

In addition, beyond legislation aimed at regulating interactions with AI technologies, the Florida legislature has also considered measures designed to address the effects of the state’s rapid expansion of data centre infrastructure. As of 2026, Florida has emerged as a growing hub for AI data centres with over 100 data centres operating in the state. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of data centres has been met with mixed public opinion, as illustrated by protests in early 2026 held in Polk County, Florida. In response, Florida lawmakers have introduced several bills during the most recent legislative session aimed at addressing growing public concern over the high electricity consumption, intensive water usage for cooling, land use compatibility, and limited transparency of data centre developments. These concerns have been viewed by some as especially pressing in smaller or resource-constrained communities, where residents raised concerns about grid reliability, water availability, and broader environmental impacts.

Ultimately, among the various proposals introduced during the session, SB 484 emerged as Florida’s answer to the ongoing national discussion. SB 484 is intended to regulate large-scale/hyperscale data centres, address electricity and water usage, facilitate local oversight, and update permitting requirements.

The law establishes a statewide framework for large-load customers and is designed to address public concerns over the potential environmental and energy impacts associated with such facilities. SB 484 passed the Senate and House in March 2026 with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor DeSantis on 7 May 2026. The law will take effect from 1 July 2026.

Key features and requirements of the law include the following.

• Preserving the ability of “local governments [to] maintain authority... over comprehensive planning and land development regulations relating to large-load customers[.]” Data centers would fall within the bill’s definition of large-load customers, as they are entities “with an anticipated monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more... at a single location.” (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Section 3(2)(d).)
• Public utility tariffs for such customers to “ensure that each large load customer bears its own full cost of service” including “connection, incremental transmission, incremental generation, and other infrastructure costs; [and] operations and maintenance expenses.” (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Section 3(3)(a).)
• Prohibiting a public utility from providing “electric service to a customer that would otherwise qualify as a large load customer if that customer is a foreign entity” under the bill’s definitions tied to foreign countries of concern. (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Section 3(7).)
• Establishing a permitting framework for large-scale data centres that “ensures [Florida’s] water resources are used in the public interest,” under which a permit could not be issued if the proposed water use “is harmful to the water resources of the area or is prohibited by the applicable local government zoning regulations and comprehensive plan.” (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Sections 5(1)-(2).) S.B. 484 goes into further detail regarding water use including stating that the permitting authority “shall require the use of reclaimed water in lieu of all or a portion of a proposed use of surface water or groundwater by a large-scale data center applicant” when certain conditions are met. (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Section 5(3).)
• Requiring the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to commission “an independent, interdisciplinary study of policy considerations related to the construction and operation of large-scale data centers” and submit recommendations by 1 July 2027. (See S.B. 484, 2026 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2026), Section 7.)

AI consumer rights

Looking ahead, the most recent legislative session also saw proposals to introduce an Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, SB 482, which was championed by Governor DeSantis. The Bill of Rights was ambitious legislation that would have established broad consumer protections intended to regulate interactions with AI platforms, including requirements of transparency for users to understand when they are interacting with AI and certain features of AI bots and systems. It would also have prohibited unconsented AI use of names, images, or likenesses, essentially expanding on the privacy tort of misappropriation. It also proposed certain parental control features, had certain restrictions on foreign AI, and included prohibitions on AI technology companies from selling or disclosing personal information of users unless the information is deidentified. It provided for civil remedies and enforcement by the Florida Attorney General as well as a private right of action for specific provision violations connected to personal harms.

The proposal was first introduced as a concept by Governor DeSantis in December 2025, and was later formally sponsored as a written proposal by Senator Tom Leek (R–Ormond Beach). The bill passed in the Florida Senate with a comfortable majority (35-2) in March 2026. However, it was not taken up in the Florida House of Representatives.

On 11 December 2025, President Trump signed an executive order (EO 14365) titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The EO directs the Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to challenge state AI laws that the administration deems inconsistent with a “minimally burdensome national policy framework.” It instructed the Secretary of Commerce to publish an evaluation identifying state AI laws that conflict with federal policy and merit referral to the DOJ task force for challenge. It also authorised agencies to condition certain discretionary grants to states, including rural broadband funding, on whether they agree not to enforce AI laws that conflict with the EO’s policy framework. Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez, voicing the view that AI regulation should be addressed at the federal level, stated that “[t]he White House’s position on AI and the House’s position on AI ... are on the same page ... we believe that the federal government should take care of AI and in whatever legislation or policy has to pass on a national level as opposed to doing it on a state-by-state basis.” (Liv Caputo, DeSantis’ AI Bill of Rights Clears Senate – but House Won’t Touch It, Fla. Phoenix (4 March 2026).)

Ultimately, the bill failed to become law amid, among other things, the data centre bill taking centre stage as well as discussions of federal pre-emption concerns. However, key elements of the bill, particularly the provisions on chatbot disclosures and children’s safety, hint at Florida’s priorities in the near future and may be brought back in the next legislative session.

Priorities looking ahead

Children’s safety

Regulators across the country and across the political spectrum are increasingly focused on AI chatbot platforms and their potential impact on vulnerable populations, including children. If enacted, SB 482 also sought to create children’s safety measures. It would have prohibited AI companion chatbot platforms from allowing users under the age of 18 to create or maintain accounts without parental or guardian consent. The bill also would have required platforms to provide parents with specific controls over a minor’s account, including: the ability to monitor their child’s interactions with the AI system, restrict or disable certain interactions with third parties; set limits on access times and duration of use; and receive timely notifications if a minor expressed an intent to harm themselves or others. It remains to be seen whether the Florida legislature will revisit AI safeguards for children, particularly in light of the 20 March 2026 National Policy Framework for AI, published by the White House a few months after EO 14365, which supports a federal AI framework that preserves states’ traditional powers to enforce laws of general applicability to protect children, prevent fraud, and protect consumers.

Name, image, and likeness protections

If enacted, SB 482 would have amended Section 540.08, the current Florida law governing the unauthorised use of a person’s name or likeness, to include AI-generated content. Specifically, the bill would have prohibited the publication, printing, display, or other public use of an individual’s name, image, or likeness created using generative AI for trade, commercial, or advertising purposes without the express consent of the individual or another authorised party. Had the law passed, Florida would have joined states such as California, New York, and Tennessee, which have already expanded their right of publicity laws to address AI-generated content.

Insurance and human-in-the-loop requirements

Finally, beyond SB 482, another unsuccessful but notable proposal that came out of the 2026 Florida legislative session was HB 527. Sponsored by Representative Hillary Cassel, the bill would have set up a framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithms in insurance claims. In a reversal of what happened in SB 482, the bill passed in the Florida House of Representatives unanimously before ultimately dying in the Senate Rules Committee. Had the bill been enacted, it would have, among other things:

• prohibited covered carriers from using AI as the sole basis for reducing a claim payment or denying a claim or any portion of a claim; and
• required a qualified human professional to, among other tasks, analyse the facts of the claim, review the accuracy of the output, and document the basis for the decision before reducing a claim payment or denying the claim or a portion thereof if an AI system assists in the processing of a claim.

Although not identical to other frameworks governing decisions in consequential or high-impact domains, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act’s Automated Decision Making Technology rules, HB 527 served as an attempt to address the increasingly common concern among state regulators about the use of AI to make significant decisions in areas like insurance without meaningful human oversight and accountability.

Conclusion

While Florida has yet to adopt a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, its targeted legislative efforts and proposed reforms demonstrate a clear and evolving engagement with pressing risks associated with artificial intelligence development, support, and deployment. Rather than pursuing an omnibus approach, Florida has prioritised discrete, high-impact areas such as election integrity, non-consensual deepfakes, and infrastructure constraints tied to AI growth, positioning itself as a pragmatic, issue-driven voice in AI policy. At the same time, the mixed fate of broader proposals like SB 482 and HB 527 reflects an ongoing tension between state-level innovation in AI governance and a preference among some policymakers for federal leadership in this space. Even so, the substance of these proposals provides meaningful insight into the state’s policy trajectory, particularly with respect to children’s safety, transparency in AI–human interactions, and accountability in high-stakes automated decision-making. As federal policy continues to evolve and pre-emption questions remain unsettled, Florida is likely to continue advancing targeted measures that align with its economic priorities and political landscape, while revisiting more comprehensive frameworks in a more mature or co-ordinated national regulatory environment.