Florida AG Proposes Criminal Penalties for AI Firms Aiding Crimes
Attorney General James Uthmeier announced plans to propose new laws imposing criminal penalties on tech companies whose AI products aid or abet crimes.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 5:13 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 8, 2026, 5:13 p.m. ETFirst report
Florida Attorney General Proposes Criminal Penalties for AI Companies Aiding Crimes
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced plans to propose new laws that would impose criminal penalties on tech companies whose artificial intelligence products aid or abet crimes, according to NBC Miami.
The proposal, described as a proposed rule, is at an early stage and has not yet been enacted. Details of the legislation have not been fully outlined, and the announcement does not specify which crimes or AI applications would be covered.
The plan is part of an ongoing effort by the attorney general's office to address the role of AI in criminal activity. Further developments are expected as the proposal moves forward.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 21:18current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 21:13current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.