To enact sections 1357.01, 1357.02, 1357.03, 1357.04, 1357.05, 1357.06, 1357.07, 1357.08, 1357.09, 1357.10, 1357.11, and 1357.12 of the Revised Code to declare artificial intelligence systems nonsentient and to prohibit them from obtaining legal personhood.
HB469 would add a new chapter to the Ohio Revised Code declaring artificial intelligence systems to be nonsentient for all purposes under state law and explicitly barring them from receiving legal personhood. The bill defines AI broadly to include software, machines, or systems that simulate humanlike cognitive functions, and then states that AI cannot be treated as a person, spouse, domestic partner, corporate officer, director, manager, property owner, or bearer of liability. Any attempted marriage to an AI, appointment of an AI to a corporate role, or transfer of property rights to an AI would be void and without legal effect.
The bill also assigns responsibility for AI-caused harm to the human or legal entity behind the system. Owners and users would generally be liable for direct or indirect harm caused by AI outputs or recommendations, while developers and manufacturers could face product-liability-style responsibility if a design, construction, or instruction defect proximately causes harm. The measure requires owners to maintain oversight and safety controls for AI systems that could affect human welfare, property, or public safety, and it directs developers, manufacturers, and owners to prioritize safety mechanisms and risk assessments. It also requires prompt notice to authorities after serious incidents involving bodily harm, death, or major property damage.
If enacted, HB469 would create a new statutory framework in Ohio law governing AI status, liability, and oversight. It would prevent courts or agencies from recognizing AI as a legal person or independent rights-bearing entity, while also clarifying that assets, contracts, and responsibilities associated with AI remain with human or corporate actors. The bill would likely affect tort, product liability, corporate governance, property, and reporting obligations by making owners, users, developers, and manufacturers the legally accountable parties for AI-related conduct and harms.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee transcript discussion, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or public sentiment in the provided materials. The text itself suggests a precautionary, pro-accountability approach to AI regulation, emphasizing human control, safety, and legal clarity rather than AI rights or autonomy.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broad definition of AI, its categorical rejection of any AI legal personhood, and its allocation of liability to owners, users, developers, and manufacturers. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to prevent legal ambiguity and ensure accountability for AI-caused harm. Critics may argue that the bill is overbroad, could create uncertainty for emerging AI technologies, and may impose expansive liability or compliance burdens on developers and deployers, especially where AI behavior is difficult to predict or control.