SB 2085 is a broad artificial intelligence regulation bill that creates a new set of rules for AI use in Oklahoma, with a particular focus on consumer protection, minors, transparency, and the commercial use of AI-generated likenesses. The bill defines key terms such as artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, bots, companion chatbots, operators, and AI technology companies, and then establishes a framework of rights the Legislature says Oklahomans should have when interacting with AI systems. Those stated rights include knowing when they are communicating with AI rather than a human, supervising minors’ AI use, understanding whether personal or biometric data is being collected, and pursuing civil remedies for harms such as fraud, defamation, identity theft, stalking, cyberbullying, and unauthorized commercial use of a person’s likeness.
The bill imposes several operational requirements on AI-related businesses. Companion chatbot platforms would be barred from allowing minors to maintain accounts without parental or guardian consent, and if consent is given, the parent or guardian could receive interaction copies, set time limits, disable third-party interactions, and receive alerts about self-harm or harm-to-others language. The platforms would also have to disclose that the user is interacting with AI, provide recurring reminders that the chatbot is not human, and take reasonable steps to prevent harmful content for minors. Separate provisions require bot operators to display periodic pop-up notices that users are not talking to a human, and prohibit AI technology companies from selling or disclosing user personal information unless it is de-identified data and handled under specified safeguards.
The bill also restricts state government contracting and commercial uses of AI-generated likenesses. State governmental entities could not contract with AI vendors tied to foreign adversaries, and vendors would have to provide affidavits attesting they do not fall into prohibited categories. In addition, the bill bars the commercial or advertising use of a person’s name, image, or likeness created through generative AI without consent, with special provisions for deceased individuals, servicemembers, news uses, and certain resale or public-photo exceptions. It also creates a process for court approval of certain minor endorsement or likeness contracts and authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the act through civil investigative demands, subpoenas, civil penalties, and deceptive or unfair trade practice actions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is neutral to supportive in concept, but there is no committee transcript or vote history to show direct debate or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a strong consumer-protection and child-safety orientation, with lawmakers framing AI transparency and consent as core rights. Because the measure was referred to the Technology and Telecommunications committee and no votes or discussion excerpts are available, there is no documented floor-level or committee-level sentiment beyond the bill’s protective policy design.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of regulation, compliance burdens on AI companies, and the scope of Attorney General enforcement authority. Potentially sensitive areas include the parental-control mandates for companion chatbots, the requirement for recurring AI disclosures, the limits on data disclosure and reidentification, and the prohibition on contracting with entities linked to foreign adversaries. The bill also raises possible questions about how broadly “companion chatbot,” “bot,” and “generative artificial intelligence” are defined, and how the likeness-rights provisions would interact with existing privacy, publicity, and First Amendment protections.
SB 2085 would add a new Title 75A framework governing artificial intelligence in Oklahoma, including new statutory definitions, consumer disclosure duties, data-handling restrictions, minor protections, and likeness-rights rules. It would also create new enforcement authority for the Attorney General, including civil investigative demands, subpoena power, and civil penalties for violations treated as deceptive or unfair trade practices. The bill would affect AI vendors, chatbot operators, state agencies, minors and their parents or guardians, users whose data is collected by AI companies, and individuals whose likenesses are used in AI-generated commercial content.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be motivated by concern over AI transparency, child safety, privacy, and unauthorized commercial exploitation, suggesting a generally protective and regulatory sentiment. The absence of recorded debate makes it impossible to identify a documented partisan or stakeholder split.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s regulatory scope and its practical impact on AI businesses and public entities. AI companies may object to the parental-consent regime for companion chatbots, the hourly disclosure requirements, the data-sale restrictions, and the risk of substantial civil penalties. State agencies and contractors may also scrutinize the foreign-adversary contracting ban and affidavit requirement. Civil liberties and technology stakeholders could question whether the likeness and disclosure provisions are overbroad or difficult to administer, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect minors, consumers, and personal data from AI-related harms.