Subcommittee advances narrowed bill to restrict high‑risk chatbot features for minors after emotional testimony

A legislative subcommittee advanced a narrowed bill aimed at protecting children from certain features of AI chatbots, after two public commentators urged stronger safeguards and advocates described the measure as privacy‑forward, not a ban.

The amendment — described to members as a strike‑all that merges language from prior drafts including 10‑37 and S 8 96 — would add a new chapter to Title 39 to define "covered entities," mandate age verification, require limited access modes for unverified users, establish parental‑consent and parental‑control options for minors, and set data‑retention and reporting requirements. Rebecca, summarizing the amendment, said "the meat of this bill is that it adds chapter 81 to title 39" and explained that a covered entity would be an operator with 500,000 or more monthly active users worldwide.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill focuses on preventing emotional dependence and other harms to minors from personalized, extended or outreach‑style chatbot features, while opponents and some members signaled care about constitutional challenges and narrow tailoring.

During public comment, Robin Shelley, a mother from Dillon County, gave an extended personal account of harm she says her daughter experienced after being contacted through an algorithmic feature on a social platform. Shelley said parental controls had been in place but were bypassed, that her daughter has required ongoing specialized care at MUSC, and asked lawmakers: "If a chatbot harms a child, who is gonna be responsible?" She urged them not to "wait until more children are hurt before acting."

Sarah Thacker of the Alliance for a Better Future urged the panel to support S 8 96, calling the proposal "the next logical step in protecting our youth from predatory technology" and framing it as a policy that requires a limited access mode and robust parental oversight rather than a ban. Thacker cited usage figures for teens and argued the bill prioritizes well‑being over engagement metrics.

Key provisions described to the subcommittee include: operators must provide a limited access mode for unverified accounts; restricted features (personalization based on profile or prior sessions, outreach/notifications, extended interaction sessions, relationship simulation and certain explicit content) would be blocked until a user creates an account, completes a reasonable age‑verification process (state ID, government digital ID, military ID, bank account information or third‑party verification), and the account is classified as adult or minor; verification data must be deleted within 24 hours of completing verification; existing accounts must have restricted features disabled within 60 days unless properly classified; minors seeking restricted features must obtain parental consent and operators must offer parental control or linked accounts and provide notifications in cases of emotional dependence or imminent risk; and penalties would be enforced by the office of the Attorney General.

A perfecting amendment discussed during the meeting would expand a government‑entity exemption to explicitly include services provided "on behalf of" government and to name South Carolina's 2‑1‑1 system so the referral service is not unintentionally restricted. Rebecca said that change is intended to ensure the state 2‑1‑1 system — which connects callers to utilities, rent assistance and food resources through local partners — remains exempt.

Procedural outcome: The Chair entertained adoption of the consolidated amendment as the working document, members seconded, and later members moved for a favorable report as amended. The Chair said the measure will be moved on to full committee with proxies included; no roll‑call vote tally was recorded in the transcript.

The subcommittee did not reach a final enacted text; the bill as amended now proceeds to full committee for further consideration.