United States - Ohio - AI Regulation (HB 392)
To enact section 9.89 of the Revised Code to limit further regulation of certain computational systems, require risk management policies for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, and to name this act the Ohio Right to Compute Act.
United States • Ohio
RAI-US-OH-ES9RCXX-2025United States - Ohio - AI Regulation (HB 392) is Under Review in United States as of 11 Sep 2026, according to legislature.ohio.gov.
BillGovernance and OversightRisk ManagementFundamental RightsOhio's HB 392, the Right to Compute Act, aims to limit regulation on computational systems and mandate AI risk management for critical infrastructure.
Summary
The Ohio Right to Compute Act (HB 392) proposes to limit further regulation of computational systems and mandate risk management policies for AI-controlled critical infrastructure. It seeks to establish guidelines for the use and regulation of artificial intelligence systems in Ohio, while protecting intellectual property rights.
Full article
Read full text ↗Overview
The Ohio Right to Compute Act, House Bill 392 (HB 392), introduced in the 136th General Assembly (2025-2026), seeks to enact section 9.89 of the Revised Code. The primary goals are to limit further regulation of certain computational systems and to require risk management policies for artificial intelligence (AI) systems controlling critical infrastructure. This legislation aims to establish guidelines for the use and regulation of computational resources, particularly AI systems, within Ohio.Definitions
The bill defines key terms pertinent to its scope. These include "computational resource" and "AI system," though specific detailed definitions are found within the bill text itself. It also defines "compelling governmental interest" as a basis for any restrictions on computational resources.Governance and Institutional Framework
HB 392 proposes that no political subdivision or state agency shall enact, adopt, enforce, or maintain any law, rule, regulation, permit requirement, or other administrative practice that restricts or prohibits any person's lawful use, development, deployment, or possession of a computational resource. Such restrictions are only permissible if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.Key Focus Areas
- Regulation of Computational Systems: The act limits the ability of state agencies and local governments to restrict the use of computational resources. Any such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest.
- AI-Controlled Critical Infrastructure: Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure are required to implement comprehensive risk management policies. These policies must align with established national and international standards, such as frameworks from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other international standardization organizations.
- Compelling Governmental Interests: The bill outlines specific compelling governmental interests that may justify restrictions. These include protecting critical infrastructure, preventing fraud, safeguarding minors from harmful AI-generated content (like deepfakes), and managing public nuisances related to data center infrastructure.
- Exemptions: The requirements for AI risk management do not apply to AI systems performing only nonexecutive tasks or those that serve as cybersecurity tools. Basic procedural tools are also exempted.
- Intellectual Property Rights: The legislation explicitly protects intellectual property rights, ensuring it does not interfere with existing patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret protections.
Implementation Framework
As a proposed bill, the implementation framework is currently in the legislative process. Should it pass, it would enact section 9.89 of the Revised Code.Monitoring and Evaluation
Details regarding specific monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are not extensively detailed in the publicly available summaries of the introduced bill. Compliance with risk management policies for AI-controlled critical infrastructure would likely be subject to existing regulatory oversight bodies responsible for critical infrastructure.Penalties, Liability, and Appeals
The publicly available summaries of the introduced bill do not extensively detail specific penalties, liability provisions, or appeal processes. These aspects would typically be elaborated during the legislative drafting and amendment process.Relationship to Other Instruments
The bill requires AI risk management policies for critical infrastructure to align with national and international standards, including those from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other international standardization organizations.International Alignment
The legislation references alignment with national and international standards for AI risk management, particularly concerning AI systems in critical infrastructure.Implementation Timeline
| Date | Milestone | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-07 | Introduced in the House | Proposed |
| 2025-09-15 | Referred to House Technology and Innovation Committee | Under Review |
| 2025-11-13 | House Technology and Innovation Committee, 3rd Hearing (Opp/IP Testimony) | Under Review |
Sources and References
| Source | Type |
|---|---|
| House Bill 392 | 136th General Assembly - Ohio House of Representatives | Official Gazette |
| OH HB392 - BillTrack50 | Legal Database |
| HB392 | Ohio 2025-2026 | Enact the Ohio Right to Compute Act - PolicyEngage | Legal Database |
| Bill tracking in Ohio - HB 392 (136 legislative session) - FastDemocracy | Legal Database |
| Ohio Right to Compute: A Bold Vision for Technology Leadership in the Intelligence Era | Academic Paper |
Requirements for a company
What an organisation has to do under United States - Ohio - AI Regulation (HB 392), at a glance. Not legal advice — the table below gives the provision and deadline for each item.
Not yet in force (Under Review). These requirements apply once the instrument takes effect and may change before then.
Must do
4- Do not enact or enforce laws restricting computational resources without a compelling governmental interest.Ohio political subdivisions and state agencies.
- Implement comprehensive risk management policies for AI systems controlling critical infrastructure.Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure.
- Ensure AI risk management policies align with established national and international standards.Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure.
- Ensure actions do not interfere with existing intellectual property protections.All entities and agencies subject to this act.
Must not do
0Nothing in this category.
Should do
0Nothing in this category.
Should not do
0Nothing in this category.
Who must do what
The obligations under United States - Ohio - AI Regulation (HB 392), most serious first. Not legal advice — verify against the official text before relying on it.
| # | Who | Requirement | By when | Where | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio political subdivisions and state agencies. | Do not enact or enforce laws restricting computational resources without a compelling governmental interest. “no political subdivision or state agency shall enact, adopt, enforce, or maintain any law, rule, regulation, permit requirement, or other administrative practice that restricts or prohibits any person's lawful use, development, deployment, or possession of a computational resource.” | Upon enactment | — | Critical |
| 2 | Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure. | Implement comprehensive risk management policies for AI systems controlling critical infrastructure. “Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure are required to implement comprehensive risk management policies.” | Upon enactment | — | Critical |
| 3 | Entities operating AI systems that control critical infrastructure. | Ensure AI risk management policies align with established national and international standards. “These policies must align with established national and international standards, such as frameworks from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other international standardization organizations.” | Upon enactment | — | Critical |
| 4 | All entities and agencies subject to this act. | Ensure actions do not interfere with existing intellectual property protections. “The legislation explicitly protects intellectual property rights, ensuring it does not interfere with existing patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret protections.” | Ongoing | — | Important |
Related Regulations
United States - Ohio - AI Nonsentience Declaration (HB 469)
United States90% similar
United States - Ohio - AI Watermark Requirements (SB 217)
United States88% similar
United States - Ohio - AI Policy Development (HB 96)
United States87% similar
United States - Montana - Right to Compute Act (SB 212)
United States87% similar
US AI Security and Innovation Act
United States86% similar
More AI regulation in United States
AI regulation in United States: full overview
- Ohio AI Regulation Summary
- Oklahoma Nonconsensual Deepfake Act
- Oklahoma AI Child Sexual Abuse Material Law
- United States - Oregon - AI Task Force (HB 4153)
- United States - Oregon - Synthetic Media Disclosure (SB 1571)
- United States - Oregon - AI in Campaigns (SB 1571)
- Oregon AI Companion Chatbot Safety Law
- Oregon AI Regulation Summary
© Regulations.AI using Gemini 2.5 Flash · updated on 6 Jan 2026 · reviewed against official sources on 11 Sep 2026