There is no single national answer. Some states have no HIV-specific disclosure requirement; others make non-disclosure before sex a felony even when HIV cannot be transmitted, because most of these laws require neither intent nor transmission[6]. A few states now recognize treatment and viral suppression. Florida does not[1]. This is not legal advice.
Read this first: this page is not legal advice
This is general information about how U.S. laws are written — it is not legal advice, and it is not medical or ethical advice about your relationships. HIV disclosure laws differ dramatically from state to state and change often. If you have been threatened with prosecution, charged, or you are simply unsure what your state requires, talk to a criminal defense lawyer licensed in your state. CHLP's Sourcebook is the reference lawyers themselves use, and CHLP is also a route to legal referrals[10].
One more thing, said plainly because it is true: disclosure is not only a legal question. DOJ's own 2014 guidance asks states to account for circumstances “where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence”[8]. If disclosing would put you in danger, your safety is not a footnote to the statute. Talk to an advocate or a lawyer before you talk to anyone else.
How disclosure laws are actually written
Most are non-disclosure statutes. The criminal element is failing to tell a partner about a known HIV diagnosis before specified conduct — not causing anyone harm. DOJ describes the category as criminalizing non-disclosure “in connection with engaging in adult consensual sexual behaviors of various types”[8]. That structure is why the Williams Institute can report that “most HIV-related criminal laws do not require actual HIV transmission or intent to transmit HIV,” and that some laws reach conduct that cannot transmit HIV while ignoring prevention entirely[6].
Where a defense exists, it is often the partner's informed consent. Florida § 384.24(2) is not violated where the other person “has been informed of the presence of the sexually transmissible disease and has consented to the sexual intercourse”[1]. In practice that puts the burden of proving a private conversation on the person living with HIV, which is one reason CHLP and Sero Project treat these statutes as unworkable rather than merely outdated.
Where viral suppression is written into the law
Scientifically this should end the argument. HIV.gov states that a person who takes HIV medicine as prescribed, gets and keeps an undetectable viral load, and stays in care will not transmit HIV to sexual partners[9]. Legally, only a few states have caught up, and we will name only the ones we can verify:
- Michigan, MCL § 333.5210(4): “A person who knows that he or she has HIV who is adherent with the treatment plan of an attending physician and has been medically suppressed per accepted medical standards is not acting with reckless disregard”[2]. HIV Justice Network reads this as a defense for people with an undetectable viral load, and points out that Michigan's law “makes no allowances for the use of condoms” — so for someone not virally suppressed, “the only defence is disclosure”[3].
- Louisiana, HB 808 (2026), effective August 1, 2026: it creates “an additional affirmative defense for people living with HIV who disclose their status and maintain an undetectable viral load,” alongside limiting prosecutions to conduct with a “substantial likelihood of transmission”[4].
Condoms, PrEP, and what most statutes refuse to count
Nevada, SB 275 (2021), is the closest adjacent example to a prevention defense: the replacement offense requires intent to transmit, conduct likely to transmit, and actual transmission, and provides a defense if the person “uses means to prevent transmission” — language broad enough to reach condom use, which Michigan's is not[5].
That is the exception, not the rule. DOJ's guidance faults most of these laws precisely because they “do not account for the use of ART, condoms, or pre-exposure prophylaxis”[8]. We are deliberately not giving you a national count of states with a viral-suppression defense, because no authoritative count exists. Look up your own state in CHLP's Sourcebook, then confirm it with a lawyer[10].
What enforcement has actually looked like
Two Williams Institute datasets show what these statutes do in practice. In Florida, between 1986 and the end of 2017, 756 people were arrested for an HIV- or other STD-specific incident, 614 of them for an HIV-related offense, across 874 separate HIV-related incidents. Only 35% of HIV-related arrests produced an HIV-related conviction, and 44% of incidents produced no conviction at all[7]. Arrest without conviction is still arrest — and still a public record of a diagnosis.
Michigan shows what reform changes. From 1991 through 2024 there were at least 90 cases involving 79 people charged under the non-disclosure law, with 74 cases producing an HIV-related conviction. After the 2019 reform, at least 11 non-disclosure cases produced 30 charges and 10 convictions, and “all but two of those convictions were for reckless disregard, a misdemeanor offense,” with no convictions for actual transmission. Cases fell from 23 in 2014–2018 to nine in 2020–2024[11]. Narrowing a statute measurably reduces how often people are dragged through it.
Sero Project, which is led by people living with HIV, frames non-disclosure prosecutions as precisely the harm to be ended, not managed[12].
Florida: no viral-load exception, no condom exception, no intent requirement
Under § 384.24(2) the trigger is knowing you have HIV plus having been told you may transmit it sexually. The only route out written into the text is a partner who has been informed and has consented. There is no viral-load exception, no condom exception, no intent requirement, and no transmission requirement, and the provision reaches sexual intercourse only[1].
The Williams Institute states directly that Florida's laws “have not been updated to take into account preventive methods of reducing transmission risk, such as use of barrier protections or reducing viral load to an untransmittable level,” and that Florida's HIV- and STD-specific laws “do not require intent to transmit”[7]. So in Florida, a person who is virally suppressed and cannot transmit HIV sexually can still be charged with a third-degree felony for not disclosing — a direct contradiction of what HIV.gov publishes about transmission[9]. Again: general information, not legal advice. Talk to a Florida criminal defense lawyer about your own situation.
Related questions
Is there a national law requiring HIV disclosure?
No. Disclosure requirements come from state law, and they vary enormously — some states have no HIV-specific requirement, while others make non-disclosure before sex a felony regardless of transmission risk. CHLP's Sourcebook, updated January 2024, is the state-by-state reference; a lawyer licensed in your state is the only place to get advice about your circumstances.
If I am undetectable, do I still have to disclose?
Legally, that depends on your state. Michigan's statute says a person who is treatment-adherent and medically suppressed is not acting with reckless disregard, and Louisiana's HB 808 adds an affirmative defense for people who disclose and maintain an undetectable viral load. Many states, including Florida, write in no such exception at all.
Does using a condom count as a defense?
Rarely, and only where the statute says so. Nevada's reformed law provides a defense if a person uses means to prevent transmission, which can reach condom use. Michigan's does not — HIV Justice Network notes it makes no allowance for condoms. DOJ's guidance criticizes exactly this: most laws do not account for treatment, condoms, or PrEP.
What if disclosing would put me in danger?
Take that seriously and get help before you disclose. DOJ's 2014 guidance asks states to account for situations where non-disclosure is directly related to intimate partner violence. Talk with a domestic violence advocate and a lawyer in your state, and ask your HIV care team about safe partner-notification options.
Related from RiseUpToHIV
References & Sources
- Fla. Stat. § 384.24 (2025). Subsection (2): the knowledge-plus-notice trigger, the informed-consent exception, and the absence of any viral load, condom, intent, or transmission element. Covers sexual intercourse only. ↩ ↩ ↩
- Michigan Legislature — MCL § 333.5210. Subsection (4): a person adherent with an attending physician's treatment plan and medically suppressed per accepted medical standards is not acting with reckless disregard. ↩
- HIV Justice Network — Michigan profile. Reads MCL § 333.5210(4) as a defense for people with an undetectable viral load, and notes the statute makes no allowance for condom use. ↩
- CHLP — Louisiana Enacts Significant Reform of HIV Exposure Law (HB 808, 2026). The affirmative defense for people who disclose and maintain an undetectable viral load, and the substantial-likelihood-of-transmission limit. Signed May 15, 2026; effective August 1, 2026. ↩
- CHLP — Nevada Passes Law Reforming HIV Criminal Laws (SB 275, 2021). Replacement offense requiring intent, likely-to-transmit conduct, and actual transmission, plus the defense for a person who uses means to prevent transmission. ↩
- Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law — HIV Criminalization and Black Americans (February 2026). Most HIV-related criminal laws require neither actual transmission nor intent to transmit, and some criminalize conduct that cannot transmit HIV while ignoring prevention strategies. ↩ ↩
- Williams Institute — HIV Criminalization in Florida (October 2018). Florida arrests 1986–2017: 756 people arrested overall, 614 for HIV-related offenses across 874 incidents; 35% conviction rate; 44% of incidents with no conviction; no provision for barrier protection, viral suppression, or intent. ↩ ↩
- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division — Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws (July 2014). The non-disclosure category of offenses; the request that states account for non-disclosure related to intimate partner violence; and the finding that most laws do not account for ART, condoms, or PrEP. ↩ ↩ ↩
- HIV.gov — HIV Treatment as Prevention (updated September 18, 2025). People who take HIV medicine as prescribed and keep an undetectable viral load will not transmit HIV to sexual partners. ↩ ↩
- CHLP — HIV Criminalization in the United States: A Sourcebook (3rd ed., updated January 2024). State-by-state statutory text and practice notes; CHLP is also a route to legal referrals for people facing HIV-related prosecution. ↩ ↩
- Williams Institute — Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Michigan, 1991–2024. At least 90 cases involving 79 people; 74 convictions; post-2019 outcomes overwhelmingly misdemeanor reckless-disregard convictions with none for actual transmission; case counts falling from 23 to nine. ↩
- Sero Project — About Us. PLHIV-led work to end inappropriate prosecutions for non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, and transmission. ↩
Community publications like POZ, Positively Aware, and TheBody inform framing and lived-experience context on RiseUpToHIV. Every clinical, epidemiological, or public-health claim above is anchored to a primary source.