Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to restrict AI “companion” chatbots aimed at children
Summary
The Senate Business and Labor Standing Committee advanced second-substitute HB 438, which would require transparency, privacy protections and child-specific safeguards for AI “companion” chatbots; the measure passed first out of committee on a 5–1 roll call after industry and advocates testified.
Representative Fiofi introduced the second substitute of House Bill 438, saying the narrow bill targets AI “companion” chatbots that simulate relationships and can exploit minors. She summarized three core provisions: users’ right to obtain conversation data and limits on using sensitive data; mandatory disclosures for advertising or paid relationships; and minor-focused safeguards including reminders the bot is not a person, encouragement to take breaks, prohibitions on promoting harmful behavior, crisis resources and parental consent before sharing youth data.
Director Boyd of the Office of AI Policy described the bill’s technical definition as two-part: (1) a chatbot that simulates a relationship with a user and (2) one built around an engagement dynamic rather than task-oriented interactions. Boyd said the office worked with stakeholders and that a safe-harbor is included so customer-service or task-oriented bots that meet protocols would be excluded from coverage.
Public testimony was mixed. Margaret Woolley Bussey, executive director of the Utah Department of Commerce, said the Office of AI Policy was created to study emerging risks and identified companion chatbots as a priority. Parent advocates including Liz Jenkins of the Child First Policy Center and Ally Terry, co-founder of G Rated School, urged the committee to protect children and endorsed age-assurance, default opt-outs for targeted advertising and operator risk‑mitigation requirements. Nathan Trean of the Information Technology Industry Council said his members support youth safety but called several provisions “unclear, overly prescriptive and difficult to operationalize” and asked for more time to refine the language.
Committee members pressed sponsors on the bill’s definitions, enforcement mechanisms and penalties; Representative Fiofi emphasized the intention to be “surgical” and protect children without chilling innovation. Senator Weiler moved to favorably recommend the second substitute. The committee approved the motion by roll call, 5–1, with Senator McKay recorded in opposition. The measure will next go to the full Senate for further consideration.
The committee record shows the bill’s primary focus is privacy, transparency and child-safety guardrails, while debate centered on how narrowly to define “companion” behavior and how to operationalize the safe harbor for mainstream customer-service bots.
