Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs several AI bills: chatbots, disclosure and AI in health reviews
Summary
The Judiciary Committee considered multiple AI bills. Lawmakers amended definitions and opt‑out language for a chatbot bill (SF1857), adopted disclosure/opt‑out language for AI conversations (SF1886) and passed SF1856 (banning AI from utilization review) out without recommendation to Commerce; committee debate centered on enforcement, definitions and consumer protections.
On March 16 the committee reviewed several bills dealing with artificial intelligence and consumer protections.
Senate File 1857 (chatbots and minors), carried by Sen. Maye Quade, would prohibit companies from making chatbots available to people under 18. Committee attention focused on remedies and enforcement mechanisms; members discussed whether settlement funds should flow to victim services or other accounts. After discussion of enforcement and transition periods, Sen. Clark moved that SF1857 as amended be passed and re‑referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; the motion carried by voice vote.
Senate File 1886 would require disclosure when an individual is interacting with AI and an opt‑out to communicate with an actual human. Committee counsel proposed replacing the word "computer" with "artificial intelligence" and amending the opt‑out language to clarify acceptable human alternatives ("including but not limited to through electronic communication and audio or video call or an in‑person meeting"). Members debated whether the opt‑out must provide immediate access to a live human, acceptable substitutes (email or callback), and how to define a "conversation" for the statute's purposes. The committee adopted counsel's drafting changes.
Senate File 1856 would prohibit the use of AI in utilization review for health insurance claims and appeals. Dr. Laurel Reese of the Minnesota Medical Association testified in strong support, saying adverse determinations should be made by a reviewing health‑care provider of the same or similar specialty, not an algorithm. The committee passed SF1856 as amended without recommendation and referred it to Commerce.
Committee members repeatedly noted that detailed policy choices—such as specific opt‑out requirements, enforcement targets and damage remedies—may be more appropriate for the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over commercial policy. Several amendments adopted in Judiciary clarified terminology and channels for the human‑interaction option but left broader policy decisions for Commerce and floor debate.
Next steps: SF1857, SF1886 and SF1856 will proceed to the Commerce Committee for additional policy review and possible amendment; Judiciary advanced enforcement and drafting changes within its jurisdiction.
