AI-Generated Political Ads

Florida’s law governing AI-generated political advertisements is a disclosure mandate, not a ban — but its formatting requirements are unusually specific, its enforcement runs entirely through a state agency rather than the courts, and a candidate genuinely harmed by a political deepfake will need to look beyond the statute itself for a private remedy.

Our Miami team advises campaigns and advertisers on § 106.145 compliance, and represents candidates and individuals pursuing companion claims where AI-generated political content causes real harm.

Overview of Fla. Stat. § 106.145

A disclosure mandate, not a ban

The proliferating use of generative AI across different fields, from the arts to the legal profession, has sparked a new wave of legislative regulation aimed at transparency. In the political arena, that oversight is especially important, since the public deserves a full picture to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

Florida’s law regulating AI-generated political advertisements requires a specific on-ad disclaimer whenever certain political communications contain AI-generated content that falsely depicts a real person performing an action that did not actually occur, and is intended to injure a candidate or deceive voters regarding a ballot issue. The required disclaimer must state: “Created in whole or in part with the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).” This is in addition to, not a substitute for, any other disclaimer already required elsewhere in Chapter 106 — a standard “paid for by” disclaimer is still required on top of it.

The law covers political advertisements, electioneering communications, and other miscellaneous political advertisements containing video, images, audio, graphics, or other digital content created in whole or in part with generative AI. Based on the statute’s unusually prescriptive formatting language, this disclaimer requirement is not a mere formality — it is a real oversight mechanism designed to give the public complete information about the political communication in front of them.

Legislative History

From concept to law within a single legislative session

The Disclaimer Requirements by Medium

The same warning, formatted differently depending on how it’s delivered

Each medium of communication carries its own formatting requirements under the statute:

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 106.145

A misdemeanor and a civil penalty — but no private lawsuit

Any person paying for, sponsoring, or approving a political communication that is required to contain the disclaimer, and who fails to include it, commits a first-degree misdemeanor and is subject to civil penalties.

The statute does not provide for a private civil action. Instead, any person may file a complaint with the Florida Elections Commission (FEC), which must adopt rules providing an expedited hearing for complaints under this section. If a matter is transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), the DOAH director must assign an administrative law judge to conduct an expedited hearing. Critically, the FEC only has jurisdiction over a willful violation — ordinary negligence or an inadvertent omission generally won’t support an FEC action.

Fines under the statute are paid to the state, not to the complainant or the injured candidate, since this is purely a civil penalty. The statute therefore functions as a regulatory or administrative disclosure mandate enforced by a state agency, rather than a tort or statutory-damages framework a private litigant could invoke against an advertiser in court to recover damages.

A Fee Shield Against Bad-Faith Complaints

Filing a baseless complaint can come back to haunt the complainant

The statute includes a mechanism protecting a respondent against a bad-faith complainant. If the FEC finds that a person filed a complaint against another with malicious intent to injure the respondent’s reputation, by filing with knowledge that the complaint contains false allegations, or with reckless disregard for whether it contains false allegations, the complainant becomes liable for the respondent’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in defending against the complaint. It is therefore important to have reasonable certainty that a violation has actually occurred before filing an FEC complaint under this section.

Private Remedies: Right of Publicity as a Companion Claim

Where § 106.145 leaves off, Florida’s right-of-publicity statute can pick up

Because § 106.145 provides no damages remedy for any private party, a candidate or other individual genuinely harmed by a political deepfake needs a separate legal theory to secure a private remedy. Florida’s statutory right of publicity, Fla. Stat. § 540.08, concerned with the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name, likeness, or image, can serve that role. Although AI-generated content isn’t explicitly mentioned in that statute, the cause of action is concerned with use of a person’s likeness generally — which would include the use of a deepfake of an individual in a political communication. This is a private claim that can provide injunctive relief to stop further unauthorized publication and recover damages for any loss or injury sustained, including punitive or exemplary damages.

Where This Fits: Harmonizing with Our Other Florida Digital-Era Statutes

Two enforcement models, running side by side

Florida’s recent wave of digital-era statutes splits cleanly into two enforcement models, and § 106.145 sits firmly on the regulatory-only side of that divide:

Brooke’s Law and § 784.049 give the person actually harmed a direct path into court, with statutory damages floors and fee-shifting designed to make suit worthwhile even where actual losses are hard to quantify. The FDBR and § 106.145 take the opposite approach: no private right of action at all, with a state agency (the Attorney General’s Department of Legal Affairs for the FDBR, the Florida Elections Commission for § 106.145) as the sole gatekeeper of enforcement. A candidate or public figure targeted by an AI-generated political attack ad should understand this distinction going in — filing an FEC complaint addresses the disclaimer violation and can result in a state-collected penalty, but it does not, by itself, put a dollar in the target’s pocket. That’s exactly why the right-of-publicity claim discussed above matters as a companion strategy, not an afterthought.

• Brooke’s Law: both statutes regulate AI-generated content that falsely depicts a real person, but Brooke’s Law addresses nonconsensual sexual depictions with a private remedy, while § 106.145 addresses political depictions with a regulatory-only one. See our Brooke’s Law materials.
• Florida’s Digital Bill of Rights: both § 106.145 and the FDBR rely exclusively on a state agency for enforcement, with meaningful civil penalties but no path for the affected individual to sue directly. See our Florida Digital Bill of Rights materials.
• Sexual Cyberharassment (§ 784.049): like Brooke’s Law, § 784.049 gives the depicted person a direct private right of action with a statutory damages floor — the same private-remedy structure a political-ad victim has to reach for elsewhere, since § 106.145 doesn’t provide one. See our Sexual Cyberharassment materials.

The Bottom Line

A regulatory backstop, not a complete remedy

While § 106.145 functions as a regulatory tool, creating criminal and administrative liability for the improper use of generative AI in political communications, a candidate or a person genuinely harmed by a political deepfake needs to look to separate legal theories — most notably Florida’s right of publicity statute — to secure a private remedy. Our team can help clients on both sides of this statute: advertisers and campaigns seeking to comply with its formatting requirements, and candidates or individuals harmed by noncompliant AI content who need to pursue the broader remedies available under Florida law.

Full Capability

Our AI-Generated Political Advertisement Services Include