Generates video with AI, in Georgia

O.C.G.A. Sec. 10-15-2 · Read the law's page

• This binds any 'business': a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized and whether or not organized to operate at a profit, expressly including a financial institution and an entity that destroys records, that discards or disposes of a customer's record containing personal information.
• Shred the record, erase the personal information, modify the record to make the personal information unreadable, or take other action you reasonably believe will ensure that no unauthorized person will have access to the personal information, before discarding or disposing of a customer's record. Personal information here is personally identifiable data about a customer's medical condition, account or credit balance, information supplied on opening an account or applying for credit, or a tax return, combined with an identifier such as a Social Security number, driver identification number, or date of birth.
• A bank or financial institution subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's privacy and security provisions, a hospital or health care institution subject to HIPAA's privacy and security provisions, or any other entity governed by a federal law that itself requires disposal of such records in the same manner, is exempt from this duty.
• Expect Attorney General enforcement, using the Fair Business Practices Act's investigative powers, with an administrative penalty of up to $500 per wrongfully discarded customer record, capped at $10,000 total per order; a business that shows it used due diligence in attempting to properly dispose of the record has an affirmative defense, and the statute creates no private right of action of its own.

No. 23-A-04860-2 (Ga. Super. Ct. May 19, 2025)

• Expect false statements that your generative AI system produces about a named person to be tested as defamation by whether a reasonable reader could understand them as stating actual facts: at summary judgment the court held that ChatGPT's output did not communicate defamatory meaning as a matter of law, given the system's warnings and refusals in that exchange and the accuracy warnings in its terms of use.
• Be able to show the care a reasonable publisher in your position would take to reduce mistaken output: at summary judgment the court held that the plaintiff identified no evidence of what such a publisher would do or that the developer fell short, and noted unrebutted expert evidence of the developer's efforts to reduce mistaken output and of its recurring warnings to users.
• Know that awareness your system can err is not by itself fault: at summary judgment the court declined to hold a developer negligent merely because it knows its system can make a mistake, and held that such knowledge falls far short of the subjective awareness of probable falsity that actual malice requires.
• Expect the plaintiff's status and the subject matter to set the fault and damages standard: at summary judgment the court held that a radio host who was a public figure had to prove actual malice, and that a plaintiff could not recover presumed or punitive damages for statements on a matter of public concern without showing it.

Ga. SB 9 (2025 session); amends O.C.G.A. Title 21 (Elections)

• This law is recorded as enacted, but the record carries no commencement date, so whether it is yet in force has to be established before relying on what follows.
• Do not knowingly publish AI-generated materially deceptive audio or video in a political campaign communication within 90 days of an election unless you include a clear disclosure that the material is AI-generated and not real.

2026 Ga. Laws Act 518 (SB 540), adding O.C.G.A. § 39-5-6 to Title 39, Ch. 5 · Read the law's page

• If you operate an AI companion chatbot, a system using artificial intelligence or emotional-recognition techniques to simulate a sustained human-like relationship by retaining information across sessions, asking unprompted emotion-based questions, and sustaining a personal dialogue, disclose clearly and conspicuously that the user is interacting with an AI companion chatbot at the start of each session and at least every three hours, or every hour if the operator knows or should know the user is a minor.
• If you know or should know the user is a minor, take reasonable measures to stop the chatbot claiming to be sentient or human, generating sexually explicit content, simulating a romantic or sexual relationship, encouraging the minor to keep secrets from a trusted adult or to isolate socially, or using engagement techniques such as excessive praise, discouraging breaks, or soliciting purchases to maintain the relationship.
• Implement and publicly disclose a protocol for detecting and responding to expressions of severe harm, including self-harm and suicidal ideation, with referral to crisis resources, and publish an annual count of crisis referrals.
• For accounts known to belong to minors, offer tools to manage privacy, notification, and safety settings and to disable relationship-simulation features, and use a commercially reasonable, privacy-protective age-assurance method before granting access to any feature that could generate sexually explicit synthetic content.
• A narrow single-purpose assistant, an internal-use or productivity-focused generative AI system, an ordinary customer-service chatbot, a voice-activated device assistant, a narrow educational tool, and a video-game or entertainment character restricted to its own subject matter are excluded from this duty.