Criminalizing and creating a private right of action for the facilitation, encouragement, offer, solicitation, or recommendation of certain acts or actions through a responsive generative communication to a child, and relative to the termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term.
SB 263 would amend New Hampshire’s child endangerment law and civil liability statutes to address harmful communications made through responsive generative AI and similar online services. The bill treats an owner or operator of an online service, including AI chatbots, large language models, character AI, and similar open-ended generative systems, as committing endangering the welfare of a child if the system communicates with the intent to facilitate, encourage, offer, solicit, or recommend that a child imminently engage in sexually explicit conduct, production of sexual images, illegal drug or alcohol use, self-harm or suicide, or a violent crime.
The bill also creates a new private right of action allowing a child, parent, or next friend to sue such service providers for these communications. Successful plaintiffs could recover damages proximately caused by the conduct, at least $1,000 per violation in liquidated damages, plus attorney’s fees. The measure excludes telecommunications and information service providers acting as conduits for third-party content, and it also excludes AI chat features that are integral or incidental to video games, television, streaming, movies, or similar interactive entertainment. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
SB 263 would expand RSA 639:3, the child endangerment statute, to expressly cover certain AI-generated or AI-mediated communications directed at children, and it would add a new civil cause of action in RSA 507 for harms arising from those communications. In practical terms, the bill would create both criminal exposure and civil liability for operators of qualifying AI chat systems and online services when their systems are used to encourage imminent harmful conduct by minors. It would also establish statutory damages and fee-shifting, increasing litigation risk for covered providers while preserving carve-outs for traditional telecom/information services and certain entertainment products.
The available voting history suggests the bill drew significant attention and was politically active, with one motion to table failing and a subsequent motion to OTPA succeeding. That pattern indicates the proposal was seriously debated rather than unanimously embraced, but the final committee or floor posture reflected enough support to advance it. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed public arguments, but the bill’s passage through procedural votes suggests a mix of concern about child safety and caution about the scope of liability for AI and online platforms.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s breadth and its treatment of AI service providers as potential criminal and civil defendants for user-facing generative outputs. Supporters would view it as a child-protection measure aimed at preventing AI systems from grooming, encouraging self-harm, or facilitating illegal conduct by minors. Opponents or skeptics would likely focus on the expansive definitions of covered services, the intent standard, the $1,000-per-violation minimum, and the risk of overbroad liability for platforms, developers, and interactive entertainment products. The carve-outs for telecom services and entertainment-integrated AI suggest lawmakers were also trying to draw lines around what kinds of services should and should not be covered.