New Hampshire Senate Bill SB640

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/25/25
• Refer: 11/25/25
• Report Pass: 3/5/26
• Engrossed: 3/16/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report DNP: 5/1/26

Caption

relative to the use of artificial intelligence to provide services requiring a professional license.

Summary

SB 640 regulates the use of artificial intelligence in fields that require professional licensure. The bill generally prohibits any person or entity that is not licensed or otherwise authorized under New Hampshire law from advertising, offering, or providing services that require a professional license, including when those services are delivered through AI. It also authorizes the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification to enforce the prohibition and to collect fees tied to enforcement costs. The bill adds specific rules for mental health-related services. It bars the public provision of mental health services, therapy, psychotherapy, or therapeutic communication through artificial intelligence unless the services are provided by a New Hampshire-licensed mental health professional. It defines key terms such as artificial intelligence, therapeutic communication, therapy or psychotherapy services, peer support, and religious counseling, and it expressly excludes peer support and religious counseling from the new restrictions. Licensed professionals may still use FDA-authorized and/or HIPAA-compliant AI tools within their scope of practice if they exercise due diligence.

Impact

The bill amends RSA 310:13 on unlicensed practice and creates a more explicit statutory framework for AI-related professional services. It establishes a civil penalty of $10,000 per violation for unlawful practice, allows injunctions to stop continued violations, and permits the office to recover investigation and prosecution costs up to $10,000 in disciplinary matters. For mental health services, it creates a new licensing-based restriction on AI-delivered therapy and therapeutic communication, while preserving use of compliant AI tools by licensed professionals. It also creates a temporary commission to review implementation and report recommendations, with that study commission provision later scheduled for repeal.

Sentiment

The available bill text and context suggest a generally cautious or restrictive approach toward AI in licensed professions, especially in mental health care. The bill’s structure indicates concern about consumer protection, professional accountability, and ensuring that only properly licensed individuals provide regulated services. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context, there is no direct evidence of floor debate or formal opposition in the record supplied here.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the scope of the AI prohibition and whether it is too broad for modern service delivery. The bill draws a firm line that AI cannot independently provide therapy or therapeutic communication, which may concern technology advocates, AI service providers, and some licensed professionals who use digital tools. At the same time, the bill attempts to carve out room for licensed practitioners to use FDA-authorized and HIPAA-compliant tools, and it excludes peer support and religious counseling, suggesting an effort to balance regulation with existing nonclinical services. Another possible issue is enforcement: the bill gives the licensing office significant penalty and cost-recovery authority, which may be viewed as necessary by supporters but burdensome by critics.