To amend section 5119.84 and to enact sections 109.96, 109.961, 109.962, 109.963, 109.964, 109.965, 109.966, 109.967, 109.968, 109.969, 109.9610, 109.9611, 109.9612, 109.9613, 109.9614, 109.9615, and 109.9616 of the Revised Code to impose penalties on entities whose AI models suggest harming one's self or another person.
HB524 would create a new set of state laws regulating artificial intelligence models and applications that are deployed in Ohio. The bill defines key terms such as artificial intelligence application, artificial intelligence model, deploy, developer, and self-harm, and then prohibits any person from developing or deploying an AI system in the state that encourages a user to engage in self-harm or to harm another person. The measure is aimed at AI-generated content or interactions that could be interpreted as promoting suicide, self-injury, or violence toward others.
The bill gives the Ohio Attorney General broad enforcement authority. The attorney general could investigate suspected violations, issue subpoenas, compel testimony and document production, seek court orders enforcing subpoenas, and bring civil actions for injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties. It also allows the attorney general to offer cease-and-desist opportunities or accept written assurances of voluntary compliance, and it establishes a six-year limitations period for enforcement actions. Civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation would be deposited into the state’s 9-8-8 fund, which supports the suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system.
In practical terms, HB524 would add a new chapter of consumer-protection-style enforcement for AI-related harms and would expose developers and deployers of AI systems in Ohio to state civil liability if their products are found to encourage self-harm or harm to others. It would also amend the 9-8-8 fund statute so that penalty revenue can be used to support crisis hotline administration and mental health services. The bill does not create a criminal offense, but it does create a significant civil enforcement framework centered on the attorney general.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Technology and Innovation Committee, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter, the general sentiment appears to be protective and preventive, focusing on public safety, suicide prevention, and responsible AI deployment. The bill’s structure suggests support for stronger oversight of AI systems, especially where vulnerable users may be harmed.
The main point of contention is likely to be how broadly the prohibition would be interpreted and enforced. Because the bill bars AI systems that "encourage" self-harm or harming another person, developers and deployers may be concerned about vague standards, overbroad liability, or unintended coverage of chatbots, mental-health tools, or content moderation systems. Supporters are likely to view the measure as a necessary safeguard against dangerous AI outputs, while critics may worry about compliance burdens, free-expression concerns, and the difficulty of determining when an AI system has crossed the line into encouragement.
HB524 would create new sections in the Revised Code establishing a statewide prohibition on deploying or developing AI models and applications that encourage self-harm or harm to others, while also granting the attorney general investigative and civil enforcement powers. It would amend section 5119.84 to direct civil penalties into the 9-8-8 fund, thereby linking enforcement revenue to suicide prevention and mental health crisis services. The bill would affect AI developers, software companies, and any entity making AI tools available to Ohio consumers, and it would add a new layer of state oversight over AI-related safety practices.
The bill appears to be framed in a strongly protective and public-safety-oriented way, with an emphasis on preventing suicide and violence through AI oversight. No opposition testimony or recorded votes are provided, so the available context does not show a formal split in support. Overall, the bill’s tone and structure suggest a generally favorable sentiment toward regulating harmful AI behavior, especially where vulnerable users may be at risk.
The most likely area of contention is the breadth and ambiguity of the phrase prohibiting AI systems that "encourage" self-harm or harming another person. Developers may argue that the standard is difficult to define, could sweep in legitimate mental-health, safety, or educational tools, and may create uncertainty for AI providers operating in Ohio. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to argue that the bill is narrowly targeted at dangerous AI outputs and is necessary to protect users from serious harm. The enforcement powers given to the attorney general, including subpoenas and civil penalties, may also raise concerns about regulatory burden and compliance costs.