HB 1395 is a broad artificial intelligence regulation bill that would add multiple consumer-protection and government-contracting rules to Florida law. It defines “artificial intelligence” for purposes of the bill, restricts state and local governments from contracting for AI technology with entities tied to foreign countries of concern, and creates a new part of chapter 501 called the “Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights.” That new part states a set of rights Floridians are entitled to with respect to AI use, including the right to know when they are interacting with AI, the right to know when personal or biometric data is collected, and the right to seek civil remedies for harms such as fraud, defamation, identity theft, stalking, cyberbullying, and certain AI-generated sexual or exploitative content.
The bill also imposes specific obligations on companion chatbot platforms, bot operators, and AI technology companies. For minors, companion chatbot platforms would need parental consent before allowing or maintaining accounts, provide parents with access and control tools, send self-harm notifications, disclose that the user is interacting with AI, issue recurring reminders that the chatbot is not human, and take reasonable steps to prevent harmful content. The bill further requires bot operators to display periodic pop-up notices that users are not talking to a human, and it bars AI companies from selling or disclosing personal information unless it is deidentified data, while also requiring safeguards to keep that data deidentified.
HB 1395 would also amend Florida’s right-of-publicity law, section 540.08, to expressly cover commercial uses of a person’s name, image, or likeness created through generative AI. Under the bill, using an AI-generated likeness for trade, advertising, or other commercial purposes without consent would be prohibited, with special rules for deceased individuals and servicemembers. The bill preserves existing news-media and other exceptions, reenacts related statutes to conform to the changes, and authorizes the Department of Legal Affairs to enforce many of the new provisions through the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, including civil penalties, investigative demands, and, in some cases, private damages actions.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or a measured vote pattern. Based on the bill text alone, the overall tone appears strongly protective of consumers, minors, privacy, and publicity rights, while also reflecting a security-oriented concern about foreign-linked vendors in government AI procurement. The bill’s structure suggests a regulatory approach rather than a permissive one, with enforcement powers concentrated in the Department of Legal Affairs.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the restrictions and the compliance burden on AI businesses and platforms. The bill reaches a wide range of entities, including chatbot services, bot operators, and AI developers that handle user data, and it creates significant penalties and jurisdictional hooks for out-of-state companies. Another likely issue is the scope of the minor protections and parental-control requirements, as well as the new commercial-use restrictions on AI-generated likenesses, which could raise questions about free expression, product design, and the practical limits of identifying AI-generated content.
The bill would substantially expand Florida statutory regulation of artificial intelligence, consumer data practices, and right-of-publicity claims. It creates new duties for AI platforms and companies, authorizes enforcement by the Department of Legal Affairs under FDUTPA, and adds civil penalties, investigative authority, and jurisdictional provisions for out-of-state businesses. It also amends section 540.08 to cover generative-AI-created likenesses and reenacts related statutes to align with that change.
The bill appears generally favorable toward consumer protection, child safety, privacy, and control over AI-generated content. In the absence of committee transcripts or votes, there is no recorded opposition or support to summarize, but the text indicates a clear policy preference for tighter regulation of AI systems and stronger state enforcement authority.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s broad compliance obligations for AI companies, especially chatbot and data-handling businesses, and the enforcement exposure created by large civil penalties and private damages. The parental-consent and monitoring requirements for minors, the mandatory disclosures for bot interactions, and the ban on commercial use of AI-generated likenesses may also draw concern from technology companies, platform operators, and free-expression advocates. The foreign-country contracting restrictions could be controversial for government procurement and vendor selection as well.