Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Deceptive Terms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs AB 489 proposal to curb deceptive AI use of healthcare titles, with amendments requested
Summary
The Board of Psychology voted to take a support‑if‑amended position on AB 489, a bill to prohibit artificial‑intelligence systems from using language that implies they are licensed healthcare professionals; staff recommended amendments and the board authorized a support‑if‑amended stance pending follow‑up with the author’s office.
The Board of Psychology voted Feb. 27 to back the intent of Assembly Bill 489 — legislation that would prohibit artificial intelligence systems from using terms or language that would mislead individuals into thinking they are receiving care or advice from a licensed health professional. The board’s staff recommended a “support if amended” position to add clarifications and technical fixes identified by staff.
AB 489, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, would make use of certain protected health‑care titles by AI-driven systems a separate violation enforceable by the applicable state licensing agency. The bill is aimed at protecting consumers — particularly people with limited health or digital literacy — from chatbots or other AI services that present themselves as licensed therapists or clinicians.
Board staff cautioned the board to consider enforcement capacity and investigation complexity if the statute treats each prohibited term or phrase as a separate offense. Staff noted enforcement of AI‑based violations could require traceability expertise, technical investigations across jurisdictional lines, and additional staff resources; the bill did not include a reimbursement mechanism for local agencies to carry out enforcement.
Board members discussed technical and jurisdictional challenges before moving for a "support if amended" position that asks for clarifying amendments and gives staff and the author’s office an opportunity to address enforcement feasibility. The board also noted a planned meeting between the Department of Consumer Affairs, all healing‑arts boards and the author’s office to discuss implementation details.
The vote was taken after a motion to adopt the staff recommendation; the board recorded an affirmative vote and directed staff to follow up with the author’s office and participate in the scheduled stakeholder discussion.
