The bill would establish basic consumer protections, including the right to know that you are talking to an AI rather than a human.
I’ve spent my career building software that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to help Fortune 1000 companies make better decisions. I started a company when most people had never heard of AI, and I built it into something of value and sold it. I’m not a technophobe. I believe deeply in innovation.
I also believe that Florida should pass SB 482, the Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights.
The bill, currently before the Senate Appropriations Committee, would establish basic consumer protections, including the right to know that you are talking to an AI rather than a human, restrictions on the sale of personal data, protections from deepfakes, and parental controls that would allow parents to monitor their children’s interactions with AI chatbots. This last clause is in response to documented cases of AI chatbots encouraging children to self-harm.
These are reasonable measures. So why is the tech industry against them?
The Computer & Communications Industry Association says the bill would “create a separate state framework” that “fragmented state laws make compliance difficult.” This means that federal law already addresses these issues or will soon address them, making Florida’s action unnecessary.
This is simply not true.
Confirmed the Trump administration’s December 2025 executive order regarding AI policy. Citizens have no right to know when they are communicating with AI. It does not protect against deepfakes. Parental consent is not required for children to use AI chatbots. Sale of personal data is not restricted. It does nothing that SB 482 does.
That’s because the purpose of the executive order is the opposite: It’s not to create federal protections, but to prevent states from regulating AI. The order explicitly calls for a “minimizing burden” framework. Minimizing the burden on industry does not mean meaningful protection for the public.
When the technology industry calls for “uniform national standards,” what it really means is that there are no standards at all.
This is where the industry’s case is particularly weak. Even Trump’s executive order explicitly separates child safety and state procurement from potential federal preemption. The administration recognized these as legitimate areas for state action. Still, the industry is fighting Florida’s bill anyway.
Their honest position would be, “We don’t want to be subject to parental consent requirements, disclosure requirements, data sales restrictions, etc. We hope the government doesn’t require these.” That’s a position they can argue on merits. But it’s politically unpalatable, so they pass it off as a concern for federalism.
The choice facing Florida lawmakers is not between state regulation and federal regulation. It’s somewhere between national regulation and no regulation.
I understand the industry’s instinct to resist oversight. I was on that side of the table. But I also know that public trust is essential to the long-term success of any technology. People become hostile when they feel that technology is being deployed against their interests—when their children are manipulated, their portraits stolen, and their data sold. That hostility ultimately produces regulations far more onerous than anything in SB 482.
Smart companies understand this. Anthropic, one of the leading AI development companies, has publicly supported transparency legislation similar to Florida’s bill. They recognize that reasonable guardrails build trust and enable continued innovation.
Governor DeSantis and Senator Tom Leake deserve credit for pushing this bill. It is neither reflexively anti-technology nor simply tolerant. Protecting consumers without stifling innovation. And it addresses real harm happening now, not hypothetical risks in the distant future.
The argument for “federal uniformity” in the tech industry is hollow. Florida must pass SB 482.
David Rabjohns is a retired technology entrepreneur living in Naples. He founded and sold a software company that uses AI and machine learning to serve Fortune 1000 customers.
