Ohio Leaders Push for AI Regulation Amid Rising Political and Explicit Content Concerns

Ohio lawmakers have acknowledged a growing urgency to regulate artificial intelligence—particularly its use in generating deepfakes and manipulating political content—but legislative efforts to address the issue have stalled amid uncertainty over enforceability and jurisdiction. While explicit and political AI content proliferates without clear legal boundaries, state officials say they lack the tools to effectively police emerging technologies, leaving voters and candidates vulnerable to deceptive material.

In recent weeks, AI-generated disinformation has surfaced in high-profile Ohio political campaigns, including doctored videos and images that went viral without disclaimers. A video circulating from the conservative Ohio Flyer PAC depicted former U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown at a birthday party, with text overlaying the clip reading, “THE PARTY’S OVER, SHERROD.” The video contained no admission that it was AI-generated. Similarly, a mailer from Republican state Senate candidate Craig Reidel featured an AI-altered photo of rival Jim Hoops—state Representative from the 74th District—posed with drag queens, alongside an animated clip of Hoops dunking on a teen girl while text claimed he supported male athletes in female sports. Reidel ultimately won the primary nomination.

Despite these incidents, Ohio remains one of the few states without comprehensive AI regulations. Lawmakers have introduced bills to address the issue, but none have advanced. House Bill 185, for example, would establish legal protections for individuals’ images and classify malicious AI-generated content without consent as trademark infringement. However, lawmakers remain divided over how to balance free expression with the need to curb deception.

Regulatory Gaps Leave Voters Unprotected

Current Ohio law requires political ads to include disclaimers about funding sources, but deepfakes and AI-manipulated media fall outside these rules. “It is the government’s role to regulate responsibly new and emerging technologies,” said House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn (D-Cincinnati), who has pushed for legislation. “But without clear standards, we’re leaving the door wide open for abuse.”

Isaacsohn’s remarks reflect broader concerns among legal experts and advocacy groups, who warn that unregulated AI tools could undermine democratic processes. While federal efforts to address deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation have gained traction in recent years, state-level action has lagged. Ohio’s legislative inaction contrasts with neighboring states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, which have proposed or enacted limited AI disclosure requirements.

Legislative Stagnation Amid Rising Risks

Ohio’s General Assembly has seen multiple attempts to regulate AI, but partisan divisions and technical uncertainties have stalled progress. A recent amendment to House Bill 185, which aims to curb deepfakes, was approved by a committee but faces an uncertain path to passage. Lawmakers have also grappled with defining what constitutes “malicious” AI content—a challenge complicated by the rapid evolution of generative AI tools.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Attorney General’s office has yet to issue guidance on enforcing existing laws against AI-generated fraud. Without explicit regulations, prosecutors rely on vague charges like computer tampering or election law violations, which critics argue are inadequate for addressing the scale of the problem.

What Comes Next?

As Ohio’s 2026 primary season concludes, the state’s regulatory vacuum leaves open questions about how future elections will be policed. Advocates for stricter AI laws point to recent federal proposals, including the bipartisan DEEPFAKES Accountability Act, which would require platforms to disclose AI-generated content. However, without state-level action, Ohio risks falling further behind in protecting voters from deceptive AI tools.

For now, the burden of combating AI disinformation rests with local media outlets and fact-checkers, who must sift through viral content to identify manipulations. Without legislative intervention, Ohio’s leaders may continue to watch as AI reshapes political discourse—with no clear rules to govern its use.