AB 406 creates a set of restrictions and policy requirements governing the use of artificial intelligence in mental and behavioral health settings, with a particular focus on schools and licensed providers. In public schools, the bill prohibits AI from performing the mental-health-related duties of school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers, while directing the Department of Education to adopt a policy for any permitted AI use in therapy, counseling, or other behavioral health services to pupils. That policy must include a way to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of AI used in those settings. The bill still allows AI for administrative support tasks such as scheduling, records management, data analysis, and organizing notes.
The bill also regulates AI providers and human practitioners in the mental health space. It bars AI providers from marketing or programming systems to imply that they can provide professional mental or behavioral health care, or that they are therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, or similar professionals. It further prohibits AI systems that are specifically programmed to deliver services that would amount to the practice of professional mental or behavioral health care if done by a person. In addition, it makes it unlawful for unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as qualified mental health providers using protected titles such as therapist, psychotherapist, or counselor.
For licensed mental and behavioral health professionals, AB 406 generally prohibits the direct use of AI to provide care to patients, but allows AI for administrative support functions. If AI is used for those permitted tasks, the provider must comply with privacy and health-record laws, including HIPAA and related Nevada statutes, and must independently review AI-generated reports or analyses. Violations by licensed providers are treated as unprofessional conduct subject to discipline by the relevant licensing board or agency.
The bill’s overall impact is to place Nevada among the states taking a precautionary approach to AI in mental health care, especially where vulnerable populations such as students are involved. It amends multiple chapters of Nevada law covering education, health professions, and licensing, and adds civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation for certain AI-provider and misrepresentation violations. The Division is also tasked with enforcement authority and public education materials about how to access licensed care and when AI is not an appropriate substitute.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable: the Assembly passed the bill 42-0 and the Senate passed it 20-1. With no committee transcript available, the record suggests broad bipartisan support and limited opposition. The most likely points of contention are the scope of the AI restrictions, especially whether the bill goes too far in limiting innovation or legitimate AI-assisted tools, versus the need to prevent misleading claims, protect patient privacy, and avoid AI substituting for licensed mental health care.
AB 406 amends Nevada law in chapters governing public education, mental health licensing, and professional conduct. It prohibits public schools from using AI to perform the mental-health-related duties of counselors, psychologists, and social workers, requires the Department of Education to adopt an AI-use policy for pupil mental health services, restricts AI providers from marketing or offering systems as mental health professionals, and limits licensed providers’ use of AI to administrative support tasks. It also creates civil penalties for certain violations and makes misuse by licensed providers grounds for professional discipline.
The bill appears to have received very strong support in both chambers, passing the Assembly 42-0 and the Senate 20-1. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s consumer-protection and patient-safety goals, particularly its effort to prevent AI from substituting for licensed mental health care or misleading the public about its capabilities. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate organized opposition, but the near-unanimous votes imply limited controversy overall.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the bill restricts AI in mental and behavioral health care. Supporters would emphasize protecting students, patients, and vulnerable people from inaccurate, unlicensed, or deceptive AI-based counseling, while opponents or cautious stakeholders may worry the bill could restrict beneficial administrative or supportive AI tools, create compliance burdens, or blur the line between prohibited therapeutic use and permitted assistance. Another possible issue is enforcement and the civil penalty structure for AI providers, as well as whether the definitions of professional mental or behavioral health care are broad enough to capture emerging AI products without overreaching.