{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","AI Legislative Guide"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Akerman LLP","Megan DeLeon"]
[null,null,"Carolina Nogal"]
[]
[]
["AI Legislative Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"AI Legislative Guide","index":1,"n_rows":5,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":5,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","USA, Florida"]
["Overview"]
["Has specific legislation, final regulations or other formal regulatory guidance addressing the use of AI in your jurisdiction been implemented (vs reliance on existing legislation around IP, cyber, data privacy, etc.)?\n\n*Please note that EU rules are applicable in all EU Member States*"," Yes, the State of Florida has enacted specific legislation that addresses the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): \n \n Section 282.802 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2024 ( https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1680/BillText/er/PDF) \n Section 1002.321 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2024  ( https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1361/BillText/er/PDF) \n Section 106.145 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2024  ( https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/919/BillText/er/PDF) \n Sections  501.701–501.721 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2024  ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/262/BillText/er/PDF) \n Section 827.072 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2024  ( https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1680/BillText/er/PDF) \n Amendments to Section § 784.049 of the Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2025  (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/1161/BillText/er/PDF) \n \n Furthermore, on January 19, 2024, the Florida Bar approved the Ethics Advisory Opinion 24-1 ( https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) .  "]
["Please provide a short summary of the legislation/regulations/guidance and explain how legislators aim to strike the balance between innovation and regulation.\n\n*Please note that EU rules are applicable in all EU Member States*"," \n \n Fla. Stat. § 282.802 (2024)  establishes Florida’s first formal AI regulatory framework, focusing on government oversight, transparency, and ethical AI use. It creates the Government Technology Modernization Council to monitor AI, recommend legislative reforms, and develop a state code of ethics for AI in government. The bill mandates disclosure requirements for for-profit entities using AI in public-facing content and requires state agencies to inform individuals when AI is used in government interactions. Additionally, it prohibits AI-generated obscene material involving minors and enforces confidentiality measures for sensitive AI-driven data. \n Legislators aim to balance innovation with regulation by promoting transparency without stifling AI development, encouraging ethical AI adoption in government, and targeting specific risks like harmful AI-generated content rather than imposing broad restrictions. This proactive yet flexible approach ensures public trust and accountability while supporting AI-driven economic growth in the state. \n \n \n \n Fla. Stat.  § 1002.321 (2024)  supports the integration of AI-powered learning platforms in Florida’s education system. It provides $2 million in recurring funds for the University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning to administer grants covering AI-based tutoring subscriptions and teacher training for students in grades 6–12. The goal is to enhance learning outcomes while easing teacher workloads through AI-driven educational tools. \n To balance innovation with regulation, the bill ensures AI adoption remains structured and well-supervised, funding professional development to help educators effectively use AI in classrooms. By encouraging responsible AI integration, legislators aim to leverage technology for academic improvement while maintaining oversight to prevent misuse and ensure equity in education. \n \n \n \n Fla. Stat.  § 106.145 (2024)  addresses the use of generative AI in Florida's political advertising. The legislation mandates that any political advertisement, electioneering communication, or related material containing AI-generated content—depicting real individuals performing actions they did not actually undertake—must include a clear disclaimer stating, \"Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence.\" This requirement aims to inform voters about the presence of AI-generated content, thereby enhancing transparency in political communications.  \n To balance innovation with regulation, legislators have implemented measures that promote responsible AI use without stifling technological advancement. By enforcing disclosure requirements rather than outright bans, the law allows political entities to utilize AI in their campaigns, provided they maintain honesty and clarity with the electorate. Non-compliance with these provisions can result in civil penalties and is classified as a first-degree misdemeanor, underscoring the state's commitment to ethical AI application in political processes. \n \n \n \n Fla. Stat. §§ 501.701–501.721 (2024)  establishes broad consumer privacy protections, including the right to opt out of the use of personal data in profiling and in solely automated decision-making that produces legal or similarly significant effects. It requires companies engaged in such processing to conduct data protection impact assessments and maintain heightened transparency regarding automated systems. \n Legislators sought to preserve Florida’s tech-friendly business climate while addressing privacy risks from emerging AI systems. Rather than imposing blanket prohibitions, the law gives consumers explicit opt-out rights and requires companies to self-assess and document risks, thereby encouraging innovation while ensuring accountability and informed consent in automated processing. \n \n \n \n Fla. Stat. § 827.072 (2024)  criminalizes the knowing possession, control, or creation of “generated child pornography,” including AI-altered or AI-generated depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct, regardless of whether an actual minor was involved. Penalties mirror those for traditional child sexual abuse material ( CSAM ). \n Lawmakers recognized AI’s legitimate creative uses but moved decisively against its exploitation for child sexual abuse imagery. The law takes a zero-tolerance approach in this narrow context, prioritizing public safety and victim protection over potential expressive freedoms, and carving out enforcement only for depictions meeting the legal definition of sexual conduct involving minors.  \n \n \n \n Fla. Stat. § 784.049 (2025)  This law requires certain online platforms to provide a clear reporting mechanism for individuals (or their representatives) to flag non-consensual, AI-generated sexual images or videos (deepfave removal requirements). Once notified, platforms must remove the material within 48 hours or face enforcement as an unfair or deceptive act under FDUTPA. \n The Legislature targeted a specific and harmful misuse of AI—deepfake sexual exploitation—without imposing broad constraints on AI content creation. By limiting the obligations to platforms that host or distribute such material, lawmakers sought to protect victims and preserve trust in digital spaces while not over-regulating benign or beneficial AI uses. \n \n \n \n Ethics Advisory Opinion 24-1  provides guidance on the ethical use of generative AI in legal practice. The opinion emphasizes that while AI tools can enhance efficiency, attorneys must uphold their ethical duties, including client confidentiality, competence, and diligence. Lawyers using AI must ensure that confidential client information is protected, verify AI-generated outputs for accuracy, and avoid unauthorized practice of law by relying solely on AI-generated legal advice. Additionally, the opinion advises attorneys to obtain informed client consent before using AI tools that may expose sensitive data and to avoid misleading statements about AI-assisted legal work in advertising or billing. \n To balance innovation with regulation, The Florida Bar encourages AI adoption while reinforcing professional accountability. Instead of banning AI use, the opinion provides a framework for attorneys to responsibly integrate AI into their practice without compromising ethical obligations. By requiring human oversight and due diligence, the guidance ensures that AI remains a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for legal expertise. This approach allows attorneys to leverage AI’s efficiency while maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of legal services. \n \n "]
["Which agency regulates the use of AI in your jurisdiction?\n\n*Please note that EU rules are applicable in all EU Member States*"," \n Fla. Stat. § 282.802 (2024): Government Technology Modernization Council  \n Fla. Stat.  § 1002.321 (2024): School Districts in the State of Florida. \n Fla. Stat.  § 106.145 (2024): Florida Elections Commission \n Fla. Stat. §§ 501.701–501.721 (2024): Florida Department of Legal Affairs (Office of the Attorney General) \n Fla. Stat. § 827.072 (2024): Enforcement lies with state and local law enforcement agencies and is prosecuted by the Office of Statewide Prosecution or local State Attorneys, with investigative support from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ( FDLE ). \n Amendments to Fla. Stat. § 784.049: Florida Department of Legal Affairs (Office of the Attorney General) \n Ethics Advisory Opinion 24-1: Florida Bar \n "]