Hawaii AI Laws 2026: Complete Guide for Businesses

Hawaii has emerged as one of the more active state legislatures on artificial intelligence in the 2025–2026 session. With 113 published AI bills, 13 having passed both chambers, and 24 in committee, the state is pursuing a coherent consumer-protection agenda centered on AI transparency, minor safeguards, and algorithmic accountability. Three bills in particular—SB3001, HB2137, and HB1782—have advanced furthest and carry the most direct compliance implications for technology companies, platform operators, and businesses offering AI-powered services to Hawaiian residents.

The Legislative Landscape at a Glance

Hawaii's AI legislative activity is concentrated in five topic areas: AI Transparency (18 bills), Automated Decision-Making (18 bills), AI in Education (18 bills), Comprehensive AI governance (18 bills), and AI Healthcare (14 bills). The leading industries represented are Technology (82 bills), Consumer Protection (24 bills), Education (22 bills), Legal (20 bills), and Finance (20 bills). Risk levels skew toward medium (52 bills) and high (26 bills), with only 22 bills rated low-risk. Businesses operating AI products accessible to Hawaiian users should treat medium- and high-risk categories as priority review items.

For a full index of tracked Hawaii legislation, see our Hawaii AI laws page.

SB3001: The Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act

Senate Bill 3001—formally titled the Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act—is Hawaii's broadest pending AI consumer-protection bill. It passed the Senate and advanced through the House committee on Economic Development and Consumer Protection with a 6-0 vote in March 2026. The bill targets operators of conversational artificial intelligence services, a definition broad enough to potentially cover customer service bots, educational tutoring tools, and mental-health support applications, not just general-purpose companion AI.

Core Requirements

• Disclosure obligation: Operators must clearly disclose to account holders and users when they are interacting with AI rather than a human.
• Minor protections: Heightened safeguards apply when the operator knows or has reasonable certainty that a user is a minor, including conspicuous disclosure of the AI's non-human nature and restrictions on certain interactions.
• Crisis-response protocols: Operators must maintain and enforce protocols addressing suicidal ideation and self-harm—prohibiting AI systems from producing content that encourages or facilitates such harm.
• No AI-as-human deception: The bill prohibits representing an AI as human or as a licensed mental or behavioral health provider.
• Annual reporting: Beginning January 1, 2028, operators must submit annual reports to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs detailing crisis intervention referrals and internal safety protocols.
• Data governance provisions: SB3001 includes provisions restricting use of personal data for targeted advertising and imposing heightened security obligations on broadly defined "sensitive data"—making it, in effect, a partial data-privacy law embedded within an AI safety measure. Industry groups including NetChoice have raised concerns about scope and proportionality.
• Enforcement: The Attorney General holds enforcement authority. The bill establishes a damages cap of $1,000,000 per operator combined with a $1,000 per-violation floor that scales against user volume.

The bill's definition of "conversational AI service" is expansive. Any product that engages users in natural-language interaction may qualify, regardless of whether it is a companion AI, a medical triage assistant, or a legal self-help application. Companies deploying any conversational AI interface accessible in Hawaii should assess whether SB3001 applies. Track bill progress on our AI Transparency topic page.

HB2137: AI Likeness Protections and Synthetic Performer Disclosure

House Bill 2137 addresses two distinct but related harms: non-consensual deepfake-style digital imitations of real individuals, and the undisclosed use of AI-generated synthetic performers in advertising. The bill passed the House in March 2026 and, as of late March 2026, had passed its second Senate reading as amended (SD1) and been referred to Senate committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and Judiciary.

Part I: Realistic Digital Imitations

Part I prohibits certain harmful uses of AI-generated realistic digital imitations of an individual's voice, face, or likeness. The legislature's stated finding is that deepfake technology enables realistic imitation with minimal technical skill, creating risks of reputational harm, fraud, harassment, and non-consensual intimate imagery. Key provisions include:

• Prohibition on harmful, non-consensual creation or distribution of realistic AI-generated digital imitations of identifiable individuals.
• Mandatory disclosure requirements when realistic digital imitations are used.
• A civil cause of action for individuals injured by unauthorized AI-generated realistic digital imitations, including civil remedies.
• Specified exemptions (the bill includes carve-outs, though the full scope of exemptions is subject to ongoing amendment).

Part II: Synthetic Performers in Advertising

Part II imposes a disclosure requirement when AI-generated synthetic performers—artificial representations of people that do not reflect actual persons—are used in advertising. Businesses that use AI-generated human-appearing models or spokespeople in advertising directed at Hawaiian consumers must disclose that the performer is synthetic. Civil fines apply for non-compliance. This provision has direct implications for brands, advertising agencies, and digital marketing platforms. See our Automated Decision-Making topic page for related tracking.

HB1782: AI Protection of Minors

House Bill 1782 establishes a regulatory framework specifically governing interactions between AI companion systems and conversational AI services on one side, and users under 18 on the other. The bill passed the House in March 2026 with HD3 amendments; the Senate's JDC and CPN committees both recommended passage with further amendments on April 7, 2026. The bill defines "minor" as any individual under 18—a broader standard than the federal COPPA threshold of 13, which industry groups have flagged as a point of concern.

Key Obligations for AI Service Providers

• Disclosure of AI identity: A provider that knows or has reasonable certainty that a user is a minor must clearly and conspicuously disclose that the user is interacting with artificial intelligence.
• Crisis support protocols: Providers must implement protocols ensuring that minors showing signs of crisis—including self-harm ideation—are directed to appropriate support resources.
• Data security: The bill imposes data security obligations specific to minor user data.
• Age verification and parental consent: Providers serving known or reasonably certain minor users must implement age verification and, in specified circumstances, parental consent mechanisms.
• Oversight and penalties: The bill creates oversight mechanisms and penalty provisions for non-compliant operators.

Affected parties include technology companies, educational institutions, and healthcare providers offering AI-powered conversational services accessible to minors. The nominal effective date in the enrolled text is January 1, 2077—an unusual placeholder that indicates the Legislature has not yet finalized the operative effective date; the actual date will depend on final amendments and gubernatorial action. See our AI in Education topic page for related minor-protection tracking.

Automated Decision-Making: Civil Rights Commission Review (SCR184 / SR165 / HR182 / HCR192)

A cluster of companion resolutions—SCR184, SR165, HR182, and HCR192—requests the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to examine how existing state anti-discrimination laws apply to algorithmic and automated decision systems. SR165 and HR182 have passed both chambers. While resolutions are non-binding, they carry significant compliance signal value: they formally direct the state's civil rights enforcement body to assess whether algorithmic systems used in employment, housing, credit, and similar contexts already violate Hawaii's existing anti-discrimination framework—without waiting for new legislation.

This is notable for any company using algorithmic hiring tools, automated credit scoring, or AI-driven housing decisions affecting Hawaii residents. A Civil Rights Commission report or enforcement guidance based on existing law could impose obligations well before any new AI-specific statute takes effect. Track developments on our Automated Decision-Making topic page.

AI in Education: HCR44, HR40, and HB1676

Hawaii's legislature has also advanced multiple measures addressing AI in schools. HCR44 and companion resolution HR40—which has passed both chambers—urge the Department of Education to co-develop an AI literacy and usage curriculum for grades 6 through 12 in collaboration with teachers. These resolutions reflect Hawaii's recognition that the next generation of workers and citizens needs practical AI literacy built into standard education.

HB1676 goes further, proposing to establish an Artificial Intelligence in Education Task Force to develop guidelines for AI use in Hawaii's public education system, with an associated appropriation. The bill is currently in committee. Educational technology companies, AI tutoring platforms, and vendors selling AI-powered tools to Hawaii public schools should monitor this task force's development, as its guidelines could set procurement and usage standards that precede formal statutory obligations. See our AI in Education topic page for the full Hawaii education bill list.

Government AI: HB2597 (Chief Data Officer AI Governance)

House Bill 2597 addresses the state's own use of AI, not just private sector obligations. The bill requires Hawaii's Chief Data Officer to develop a public-facing AI chatbot integrated with the state's open data portal, and to build a system for evaluating and selecting AI governance tools for use by state departments and agencies. It also mandates a mechanism for reporting and publishing AI use cases and vendors used by government agencies—a transparency measure for public-sector AI procurement. The bill is currently in committee. Technology vendors selling AI tools to Hawaii state agencies should treat this bill's governance framework as a likely future procurement requirement.

Image-Based Sexual Abuse: SR71 and HR85

SR71 and HR85—both of which have passed both chambers—request the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, in collaboration with the Office of the Legislative Reference Bureau and the Department of the Attorney General, to establish a working group and deliver a report on strengthening protections for survivors of image-based sexual abuse, including AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery. While these are resolutions rather than statutes, the working group's report is expected to inform future legislation in this space.

Key Bills Summary Table

Compliance Priorities by Company Type

For a comprehensive view of all 113 published Hawaii AI bills, including full text links and status history, visit our Hawaii AI laws state page.

What Makes Hawaii's Approach Distinctive

Several features of Hawaii's AI legislative posture set it apart from other active state legislatures. First, the state is pursuing AI transparency and minor-protection requirements in the absence of a comprehensive consumer data privacy law—the NetChoice testimony on SB3001 noted that Hawaii lacks a general data privacy statute, making the data governance provisions in SB3001 novel and potentially conflicting with federal frameworks. Second, the state is explicitly directing its existing civil rights enforcement infrastructure—the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission—to apply current anti-discrimination law to algorithmic systems, rather than waiting for new legislation. Third, the legislature is advancing both private-sector AI regulation and a government AI governance framework in parallel, through HB2597. Taken together, these moves suggest a pragmatic, enforcement-first approach: use existing legal tools where possible, fill gaps with targeted new requirements, and build state-level AI literacy and governance capacity simultaneously.

Compare Hawaii's approach to other active state legislatures on our Comprehensive AI topic page.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for guidance specific to your situation.