USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jason Loring, Andrew Lee and Lara Sevener, Jones Walker LLP
Looking Ahead Florida’s privacy landscape in 2026 reflects targeted enforcement rather than comprehensive regulation. The CHINA Prevention Unit’s creation signals aggres - sive action on foreign ownership concerns, particularly in healthcare. The potential passage of SB 482 would establish substantial AI governance requirements focused on protecting minors and preventing unau - thorised professional services through automated systems. The Roku enforcement action demonstrates that Big Tech companies subject to the FDBR should expect active enforcement with regard to protection of children’s data, transparency obligations and con - sumer opt-out rights. This approach contrasts sharply with comprehensive privacy laws in California, Virginia, Colorado and other states. By focusing on specific perceived harms rather than establishing broad privacy frameworks, Florida is testing whether targeted, issue-specific regulation can protect consumers while minimising compliance burdens on most businesses. Florida’s model mirrors broader state-level scepticism about foreign access to data and the risks posed by generative AI, reflecting national political dynamics around data sovereignty and technological competition with adversary nations. The model appeals to business interests by limiting regulatory obligations for the vast majority of compa - nies while addressing concerns about data practices by dominant platforms, data collection by foreign enti - ties and AI risks to children. Florida’s narrow model could face pressure to evolve if federal privacy or AI legislation advances in 2026– 2027. Congressional proposals for comprehensive federal privacy legislation would pre-empt some state laws, though the extent of pre-emption remains con - tested. Federal AI regulation focusing on algorithmic discrimination, transparency or safety could establish baseline requirements that affect Florida’s enforce - ment priorities. Additionally, if other states adopt more comprehensive frameworks and businesses seek reg - ulatory harmonisation, Florida may face pressure to align with emerging national standards.
The practical impact of Florida’s approach will depend significantly on enforcement intensity. The CHINA Prevention Unit’s success in pursuing foreign-owned healthcare companies will determine whether other states adopt similar strategies. SB 482’s passage and implementation will demonstrate whether tar - geted AI regulation focused on children and profes - sional services can effectively address AI risks without comprehensive algorithmic governance frameworks. The Roku case and subsequent FDBR enforcement actions will establish whether Florida can effectively regulate Big Tech platforms while exempting mid- market businesses. Healthcare companies with foreign ownership, Big Tech platforms under the FDBR, and any company deploying AI systems that interact with Florida chil - dren should prioritise compliance preparation in 2026. For these entities, Florida’s targeted enforcement cre - ates significant liability risk despite the state’s gener - ally business-friendly reputation. For most other busi - nesses, Florida’s light-touch approach means privacy obligations remain limited to breach notification and reasonable security measures rather than compre - hensive privacy programme requirements. This dual reality (intense scrutiny for some, minimal obligations for most) defines Florida’s distinctive privacy law landscape. Florida’s 2026 enforcement and legisla - tive activity will shape whether the state maintains its targeted model or moves toward broader privacy legislation in 2027.
580 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook