Florida’s Legislature opened a special four-day session on April 28 to take up SB 2D, a bill that would establish consumer rights in automated decision-making and require transparency for AI-generated chatbot interactions. Senate leadership confirmed intent to advance the bill on Day 1, according to legal analysis published by JDSupra. The session is scheduled to run through May 1.
The bill’s core provisions address two areas compliance teams have been watching across multiple states. First, it would create consumer rights around automated decision systems, giving individuals the ability to contest or seek human review of AI-driven determinations that affect them. Second, it would require transparency disclosures when users interact with AI-powered chatbots, likely covering customer service, HR screening, and other consumer-facing deployments.
The central tension is not in the bill’s text. It’s between the two chambers. Florida’s House Speaker has reportedly maintained that AI regulation should be handled exclusively at the federal level, a position that, if accurate, represents the central legislative obstacle to passage before May 1. That attribution comes from sources cited by The Wire but could not be independently confirmed against a primary source URL, human editorial review is recommended before publishing this claim as stated. The claim matters because it reframes the session: rather than a simple passage question, the four days are a test of whether state AI legislation can survive internal preemption resistance.
This tension is not unique to Florida. The federal-versus-state AI governance conflict has been building throughout 2026, with the White House’s national AI framework explicitly calling for federal preemption of state laws. The DOJ has reportedly backed federal preemption positions in at least one state-level AI litigation matter. Florida’s intra-legislative split mirrors the national debate, with the Senate playing the role of states’-rights proponent and the House aligning, at least on this issue, with the White House framework.
For compliance teams, the timing matters. Colorado’s SB 205 reasonable-care standards take effect June 30. The Take It Down Act’s 48-hour removal requirements begin May 1. Florida’s SB 2D, if it passes, would add another state-specific automated-decision framework to a compliance calendar that is already stacking up. If it fails, or is watered down in conference, it tells a different story: that federal preemption pressure is successfully slowing state AI legislation even in legislatures with clear Senate appetite for action.
What to watch before May 1: whether House leadership brings SB 2D to a floor vote, whether any amended version softens the automated-decision provisions to secure House votes, and whether the session produces a preemption-compatible alternative that passes both chambers. A session that ends without passage would be as significant as one that does.
The practical question compliance teams should be asking: if Florida passes SB 2D in substantially the current form, does your automated decision infrastructure in Florida have a human review pathway ready? The question is worth answering before May 1, regardless of which way the session goes.