Arizona
Arizona AI Laws: HB 2311 Veto, Deepfakes, What's Next (2027)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 5, 2026). · Law checked current as of November 5, 2026. · 15 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

As of November 2026, Arizona has not enacted a comprehensive AI law or an AI chatbot law: Governor Hobbs vetoed the chatbot bill, HB 2311, on June 19, 2026. Its AI-related statutes are narrow, led by the 2024 election deepfake laws, HB 2394 (A.R.S. 16-1023) and SB 1359 (A.R.S. 16-1024), and the 2025 impersonation law, SB 1295.
This page covers Arizona state law, with one short note on the federal layer. Bill statuses are as shown on the Legislature's site on November 4, 2026. For how other states compare, see the US AI laws hub.
Arizona AI Laws at a Glance

| Law | What it does | Names AI? | Status as of November 4, 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HB 2394, A.R.S. 16-1023 | Civil action over digital impersonations | Yes, in a definition | In force |
| SB 1359, A.R.S. 16-1024 | Candidate deepfake disclosure | Yes | In force |
| SB 1295, A.R.S. 13-2006 | Impersonation with computer generated media | No: "computer generated" | In force |
| HB 2678, Laws 2025 ch. 174 | Child exploitation definitions | Yes, in a definition | In force |
| HB 2342, Laws 2025 ch. 81 | Limits on local regulation of computational power at home | Yes, in a definition | In force |
| HB 2175, A.R.S. 20-3103, 20-3407 | Medical director review of denials | No | In force since July 1, 2026 |
| HB 2311 (2026) | AI chatbot rules | Yes | Vetoed June 19, 2026; not law |
Arizona Deepfake Laws: HB 2394, SB 1359 and HB 2678
Arizona's two 2024 election deepfake laws work differently. Under A.R.S. 16-1023 (HB 2394, signed May 21, 2024), a person may bring a civil action over a digital impersonation, and the sole remedy is declaratory relief unless the section expressly provides otherwise. Injunctive relief and damages require sexual content, a plaintiff who was not a public figure, and actual knowledge or failure to take corrective action within 21 days.
Under A.R.S. 16-1024 (SB 1359, signed May 29, 2024), within 90 days before an election a creator may not create and distribute a synthetic media message the person knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot, "unless the synthetic media message includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure that conveys to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence." The penalty is the civil penalty in A.R.S. 16-937(B) for each day of distribution without the disclosure. Satire, parody and interactive computer services are exempt.

HB 2678 (Laws 2025 ch. 174, signed May 12, 2025) changed the child exploitation definitions. "Visual depiction" now covers an image "regardless of whether the image is created or modified by means of computer software, artificial intelligence or other digital editing tools," and "minor" includes a visual depiction "that is indistinguishable from an actual minor," meaning one where "a person viewing the depiction would reasonably conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor." See the Arizona deepfake laws page for the detail.
SB 1295: Arizona's Computer Generated Voice and Image Fraud Law (A.R.S. 13-2006)
SB 1295 (Laws 2025 ch. 184, signed May 13, 2025) added a form of criminal impersonation: "using a computer generated voice recording, image or video of another person with the intent to defraud other persons." The law says "computer generated," not AI.
"Defraud" here means "to make a false representation or material omission to deceive another person to gain a benefit." That paragraph is a class 5 felony, while the other forms of criminal impersonation are class 6.
The act excludes some uses: "comedy, parody, artistic expression, criticism or circumstances where it is clear to a reasonable listener or viewer that the recording, image or video has been digitally manipulated are not fraudulent."
HB 2175: Arizona's Insurance Denial Review Law Does Not Mention AI
News coverage and an earlier version of this page described HB 2175 as a ban on AI denials. The chaptered text (Laws 2025 ch. 165) does not use the words artificial intelligence, algorithm or automated. It is a human-review rule that would reach AI in practice, but it does not name AI, so it is not an AI statute.

Governor Hobbs signed it on May 12, 2025, and it took effect July 1, 2026 ("from and after June 30, 2026"). It has two parts:
- Claims, A.R.S. 20-3103. "Before a health care insurer may deny a claim that was submitted by a provider on the basis of medical necessity, the medical director shall individually review the denial."
- Prior authorization, A.R.S. 20-3407. The same review applies before an insurer issues "a direct denial of a prior authorization of a service that was requested by a provider and that involves medical necessity."
In each review, the medical director "shall exercise independent medical judgment and may not rely solely on recommendations from any other source." The two sections do not add a state medical license requirement or a duty to explain a denial in writing, as some summaries said.
HB 2342: Where Arizona Law Names AI in Home Computing
HB 2342 (Laws 2025 ch. 81, approved April 18, 2025) amended A.R.S. 9-500.42 and 11-269.22. A city, town or county "may not prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual from lawfully accessing or using computational power or running a node on blockchain technology in a residence."
"Computational power" is defined to include "artificial intelligence, blockchain, scientific research and cloud computing." The law limits local government and does not regulate AI companies.
HB 2311: Arizona's Vetoed AI Chatbot Bill
HB 2311 passed the House 43-13 on February 24, 2026, passed the Senate as amended, and cleared a final House vote 35-20 on June 12, 2026. Governor Hobbs vetoed it on June 19, 2026, so it is not law.

According to the Senate Research fact sheet, the final version would have applied from October 1, 2027 to operators of publicly available conversational AI services, with added requirements for minor account holders. A violator would have faced an injunction and the greater of actual damages or civil penalties of $1,000 per violation, up to $500,000 per operator.
Only the Attorney General could have sought the penalties, and the bill created no private right of action. The fact sheet reports that the veto message said the bill "prohibits families from bringing lawsuits, limits damages to families and restricts the state's ability to bring actions."
Other Arizona AI Bills That Did Not Become Law
As of November 4, 2026, the Legislature's bill records showed these results for the 2026 session.
| Bill | Subject | Result |
|---|---|---|
| HB 2592 | AI rules for state agencies | Vetoed June 19, 2026 |
| HB 2133 | Synthetic depictions of nudity or sexual activity | Vetoed June 19, 2026 |
| SB 1786 | AI content verification | Held awaiting concurrence or conference |
| HB 2409 | Statewide AI education program | Held in Senate |
| HB 2410 | AI and privileged communications | Held in Senate |
| HB 2371 | Arbitration and divorce involving AI | Held in Senate |
| HB 2737 | Chatbot regulations and personal data | Held in committee |
| HB 2490 | Rental price fixing and algorithmic pricing | Held in committee |
| SB 1717 | Commercial use of biometric identifiers | Held in committee |
| SB 1707 | Appropriation for AI in border security | Held awaiting Committee of the Whole |
Arizona Attorney General: OpenAI Suit and Grok Investigation
Attorneys general in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia announced separate suits against OpenAI on October 14, 2026. Official releases from Arkansas and Montana also name Kansas among the states that sued.
Attorney General Mayes's release says Arizona's suit was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and alleges violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act over deceptive design and marketing of ChatGPT and risks to minors. These are allegations, and the only law the release names is a general consumer law, not an AI statute.

On January 15, 2026, Mayes also announced an investigation into "X's artificial intelligence chatbot, known as Grok," saying her office would "determine whether Arizona law has been violated." The release names no statute, and an investigation is not a finding.
Arizona's State Agency AI Policy and Court Rules
Statewide Policy P2000, issued by the Arizona Department of Administration with an effective date of March 15, 2024 in the version we opened, covers generative AI use. It applies to state Budget Units and, through contracts, to third parties working for them. It is an administrative policy, not a statute, and it says AI outputs "must be reviewed by knowledgeable human operators."
Governor Hobbs also announced her appointments to an AI Steering Committee on May 21, 2025. We did not find published recommendations from it as of November 4, 2026, in a web search.
The courts have their own track. The Arizona Supreme Court created the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts by Administrative Order 2024-33.
Insurance Regulators and AI in Arizona
The NAIC's implementation list for its model bulletin on insurers' use of AI, status as of November 3, 2026, does not list Arizona. That list tracks the model bulletin only, so it does not show whether the state's insurance department has addressed AI in some other document.
AI in Hiring and Other Subjects in Arizona
We found no Arizona statute on AI in hiring, companion chatbots, or frontier AI safety. We searched the full text of the session law chapters posted on azleg.gov for 2024, 2025 and 2026 for the words artificial intelligence, chatbot, algorithm, machine learning, automated decision, generative AI, deepfake and synthetic media.
Beyond the laws on this page, the only substantive hit was a definition in a 2024 sexual-offense amendment (Laws 2024 ch. 251) that excludes AI-generated images. No 2026 chapter used the term artificial intelligence. A law using other words would not surface, as HB 2175 and SB 1295 show.
AI Note-Takers and Arizona Recording Law
Whether an AI note-taker may record a meeting turns on recording consent, and this site classifies Arizona as a one-party consent state. See Arizona AI meeting recording laws.
Federal AI Policy and Arizona
As of November 4, 2026, we found no federal statute in the public laws of the 119th Congress that sets general rules for private AI systems or generally preempts state AI laws. In December 2025, Executive Order 14365 directed federal agencies to challenge or discourage state AI laws the administration views as conflicting with national policy, and called for a federal framework from Congress. The order itself does not declare any state law invalid.
See Trump's AI executive orders and state AI law preemption for what has happened since.
What Changes in Arizona AI Law in 2027
As of November 4, 2026, we found no AI law scheduled to take effect in Arizona in 2027; we searched the session laws posted on azleg.gov for the 2025 and 2026 sessions. HB 2311's October 1, 2027 date does not apply, because the bill was vetoed.
One dated item sits with the courts. On August 27, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition for a new Rule 135 and ordered its AI steering committee to report by March 1, 2027 "on any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary to provide judicial officers clear, workable standards for the permissible and responsible use of emerging AI technologies." A report is a recommendation, not a rule.
The bills above ended with the 57th Legislature, so a new bill would have to be filed in 2027. We did not search for 2027 bills.
More Arizona Laws
Explore other Arizona law topics on Recording Law:
- Arizona Recording Laws
- Arizona Data Privacy Laws
- Arizona Whistleblower Laws
- Arizona Background Check Laws
- Arizona Biometric Privacy Laws
- Arizona Deepfake Laws
- Arizona AI Meeting Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Arizona have an AI law?
Arizona has no comprehensive AI law as of November 2026, but it has narrow statutes that touch AI, including the election deepfake laws at A.R.S. 16-1023 and 16-1024, the computer generated impersonation offense at A.R.S. 13-2006, and child exploitation definitions amended in 2025.
Did Arizona's HB 2311 become law?
No. Governor Hobbs vetoed HB 2311, the AI chatbot bill, on June 19, 2026. Its final version would have applied to operators of publicly available conversational AI services from October 1, 2027.
Does Arizona ban AI from denying health insurance claims?
Not in those words. HB 2175, in force since July 1, 2026, never mentions AI. It requires a health care insurer's medical director to individually review a medical-necessity claim denial or a direct denial of prior authorization, exercise independent medical judgment, and not rely solely on recommendations from any other source.
Are election deepfakes illegal in Arizona?
A.R.S. 16-1024 bars creating and distributing a known deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of a candidate on the ballot within 90 days before an election unless it carries a clear and conspicuous AI disclosure. Satire, parody and interactive computer services are exempt, and the penalty is civil, for each day of distribution. A.R.S. 16-1023 separately allows a civil action, generally limited to declaratory relief.
Is it a crime to use an AI voice clone to scam someone in Arizona?
A.R.S. 13-2006 makes it criminal impersonation, a class 5 felony, to use a computer generated voice recording, image or video of another person with the intent to defraud other persons. Comedy, parody, artistic expression, criticism and circumstances where it is clear to a reasonable listener or viewer that the media has been digitally manipulated are not fraudulent under the section.
Is Arizona suing OpenAI?
Attorney General Mayes announced a suit against OpenAI on October 14, 2026, in Maricopa County Superior Court. Her release says it alleges violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act over ChatGPT. These are allegations, and that act is a general consumer law, not an AI statute.
Does Arizona have an AI hiring law?
We found none, based on a term search of the session laws posted on azleg.gov for 2024, 2025 and 2026. A law using other words would not surface in that search.
What AI laws take effect in Arizona in 2027?
As of November 4, 2026, we found none, based on a search of the session laws posted for the 2025 and 2026 sessions. The Arizona Supreme Court has ordered a committee report on AI standards for judges by March 1, 2027, which is a recommendation and not a law.
Updates
Rewrote the page for November 2026: corrected HB 2311 from pending to vetoed, corrected HB 2175 (it never mentions AI, its prior-authorization duty is at A.R.S. 20-3407, and it has no license or written-explanation term), and added the OpenAI suit, other vetoed and dead bills, HB 2342 and the Supreme Court's March 2027 report order.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the remedies available under Arizona's digital impersonation law (A.R.S. § 16-1023), which allows declaratory relief by default and permits damages only where all three statutory conditions including the non-public-figure requirement are met, clarified the 21-day corrective action window, added Arizona's previously omitted candidate deepfake disclosure law (SB 1359, A.R.S. § 16-1024), corrected SB 1295 to 2025, and updated HB 2175 to reflect that it is now in force.
Removed a fabricated "harassment" basis from the description of Arizona's SB 1295 AI-impersonation law; the enacted statute (A.R.S. 13-2006(A)(4)) covers only AI-generated voice/image/video impersonation done with intent to defraud.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 (Elections and Electors), Chapter 7 (PENAL PROVISIONS), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 16-1023Digital impersonation of candidate or other person; relief; applicability; definitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. A candidate for public office or political party office who will appear on the ballot in this state or any citizen of this state may bring an action for digital impersonation within two years after the date that the person knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that a digital impersonation of the person who is bringing the action was published. The sole remedy on this cause of action is preliminary and permanent declaratory relief except as otherwise expressly provided by this section. To prevail on an action prescribed by this section, a plaintiff must prove all of the following: 1. That a digital impersonation of the person was published to one or more other persons without the person's consent. 2. That at the time of publication either of the following applies: (a) The publisher did not reasonably convey to the persons to whom the publication was made that the recording or image was a digital impersonation or that its authenticity was disputed. (b) It would not be obvious to a reasonable person that the recording or image was a digital impersonation. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Also relied on in: Arizona Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arizona Surreptitious Recording & Voyeurism Laws: ARS 13-3019 Penalties (2026), Are Deepfakes Illegal in Arizona? A.R.S. 13-1425 (2027)
§ 16-1024Deepfakes; candidates; exemptions; civil liability; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. Within ninety days before an election at which a candidate for elected office will appear on the ballot, a person that acts as a creator shall not create and distribute a synthetic media message that the person knows is a deceptive and fraudulent deepfake of that candidate who is on that ballot unless the synthetic media message includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure that conveys to a reasonable person that the media includes content generated by artificial intelligence. B. This section does not apply to: 1. Media that constitutes satire or parody. 2. An interactive computer service as defined in 47 United States Code section 230. C. A person who fails to make the disclosure required under this section is liable for the civil penalty prescribed by section 16-937, subsection B, for each day that they distribute the deceptive and fraudulent deepfake without such disclosure. D. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Creator": (a) Means any person that uses artificial intelligence or other digital technology to generate synthetic media. (b) Does not include the provider of any technology used in the creation of synthetic media. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 20 (FORGERY AND RELATED OFFENSES)
§ 13-2006Criminal impersonation; classificationIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. A person commits criminal impersonation by: 1. Assuming a false identity with the intent to defraud another; or 2. Pretending to be a representative of some person or organization with the intent to defraud; or 3. Pretending to be, or assuming a false identity of, an employee or a representative of some person or organization with the intent to induce another person to provide or allow access to property. This paragraph does not apply to peace officers in the performance of their duties; or 4. Using a computer-generated voice recording, image or video of another person with the intent to defraud other persons. For the purposes of this paragraph, "defraud" means to make a false representation or material omission to deceive another person to gain a benefit. B. For the purposes of this section, comedy, parody, artistic expression, criticism or circumstances where it is clear to a reasonable listener or viewer that the recording, image or video has been digitally manipulated are not fraudulent. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Romero-Gomez (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2019)“…ez pled guilty to one count of criminal impersonation under A.R.S. § 13-2006(A)(1) (2019), and the superior court su…”
- Graciela Hernandez De Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2014, 770 F.3d 823)“…is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because A.R.S. § 13-2006(A)(1) explicitly requires proof of “int…”
- Aaron Ludwig v. State of Arizona (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2019)“…as probable cause to support the prosecution’s charge under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2006(A)(3); he does not identify which claim…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Are AI Voice Scam Calls Illegal? FCC and State Law (2027), Deepfake Fraud and Impersonation Laws (2027)
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 (Elections and Electors), Chapter 6 (CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES), Article 1.7 (Enforcement)
§ 16-937Failure to file; penalties; notice; suspensionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. If a committee fails to timely file a complete report as prescribed by articles 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of this chapter, the filing officer shall send a written notice by e-mail to the committee within five days after the filing deadline that identifies the late report, describes how fines accrue and identifies methods of payment. B. A committee that fails to timely file a report shall pay the filing officer a penalty of ten dollars for each day that the filing is late during the first fifteen days after the filing deadline and twenty-five dollars for each subsequent day that the filing is late. Penalties accrue until the late report is filed. C. If a committee fails to file a complete report within thirty days after the filing deadline and after providing notice pursuant to subsection A of this section, the filing officer may notify the appropriate enforcement officer prescribed in this article. D. For any political action committee or political party that fails to file three consecutive complete reports, the filing officer shall send by e-mail to the committee a notice of temporary suspension and the following apply: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court 2018, 430 P.3d 1241)“…are not designed to fully address a Title 19 violation. See A.R.S. § 16-937(A)–(D); § 16-938(A), (C)(1), (E)(2), (F…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 20 (Insurance), Chapter 20 (TIMELY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 20-3103Denial of claims; review of claimsIn force
(Eff. 7/1/26) Before a health care insurer may deny a claim that was submitted by a provider on the basis of medical necessity, the medical director shall individually review the denial. During each individual review, the medical director shall exercise independent medical judgment and may not rely solely on recommendations from any other source.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
United States Code Title 47
§ 230Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive materialIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
The Congress finds the following: The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 853 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 591 F.3d 250)“…cation of information created and developed by others.2 See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (e)(3), & (f)(3); Zeran v. Am. O…”
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 521 U.S. 844)“…entitled "Online Family Empowerment." See 110 Stat. 137 , 47 U. S. C. § 230 (1994 ed., Supp. II); 141 Cong. Rec. 2…”
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2008, 528 F.3d 413)“…aims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C § 230, and Texas common law. For the followin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ninth Circuit: Section 230 Is a Defense, Not Immunity From Suit, xAI Sues Grok User Over Alleged AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material, Illinois Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and BIPA Rules (2026)
Sources and References
- Arizona Senate Research, HB 2311 vetoed amended fact sheet(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Legislature bill record, HB 2311 (2026)(apps.azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. 16-1023, digital impersonation of candidate or other person(www.azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. 16-1024, deepfakes; candidates(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Laws 2025 ch. 174 (HB 2678)(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Laws 2025 ch. 184 (SB 1295), A.R.S. 13-2006(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Laws 2025 ch. 165 (HB 2175), A.R.S. 20-3103, 20-3407(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Laws 2025 ch. 81 (HB 2342), A.R.S. 9-500.42, 11-269.22(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Attorney General, lawsuit against OpenAI, October 14, 2026(www.azag.gov).gov
- Arizona Attorney General, investigation of Grok, January 15, 2026(www.azag.gov).gov
- Arizona Statewide Policy P2000, Generative Artificial Intelligence(aset.az.gov).gov
- Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2024-33(www.azbar.org)
- NAIC, Implementation of NAIC Model Bulletin: Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers (status as of November 3, 2026)(content.naic.org)
- Arizona Supreme Court No. R-26-0020, order denying petition to adopt Rule 135, August 27, 2026(www.azcourts.gov).gov
- Arizona Office of Strategic Initiatives, Governor Hobbs's AI Steering Committee announcement, May 21, 2025(osi.az.gov).gov
- Arkansas Attorney General release on suit against OpenAI(arkansasag.gov).gov
- Montana Department of Justice release on suit against OpenAI(dojmt.gov).gov