Requires operators of artificial intelligence companions and artificial intelligence companion platforms to provide notice to users that the users are interacting with artificial output if a reasonable person that interacts with the artificial intelligence companion or artificial intelligence companion platform would believe that the person was interacting with a natural person.
SB 1546 regulates “artificial intelligence companions” and the platforms that provide them in Oregon. The bill defines these systems as AI tools designed to simulate sustained human-like platonic, intimate, or romantic companionship, while carving out exclusions for ordinary customer service tools, productivity software, certain video game features, and voice assistants. If a reasonable user could believe they are interacting with a real person, the operator must provide a clear and conspicuous notice that the output is artificially generated.
The bill also requires operators to adopt and publish protocols for detecting suicidal or self-harm ideation and for responding with referrals to the 9-8-8 suicide and crisis lifeline, and for users under 25, a youthline option may be provided instead. For minors, operators must take reasonable measures to prevent the AI from presenting itself as human, simulating emotional dependence or romantic interest, engaging in sexualized content, or role-playing adult-minor romantic relationships. The bill further requires break reminders every three hours for minor users and limits certain manipulative engagement tactics, such as reward systems intended to maximize use or messages that simulate distress when a user tries to disengage.
SB 1546 also imposes annual public reporting requirements on operators, including the number of crisis referrals made and the details of the safety protocol, while prohibiting disclosure of personal identifying information. The bill creates a private right of action for individuals harmed by violations, allowing recovery of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. It also states that these remedies do not limit other duties or liabilities under existing law.
The overall sentiment appears broadly supportive, with strong passage in both chambers and only limited opposition. The Senate committee vote was 4-1, the Senate floor vote was 26-1, the House committee vote was unanimous, and the House floor passed 49-0, followed by Senate concurrence at 28-2. That voting pattern suggests bipartisan agreement that the bill addresses a real consumer and youth-safety concern around emotionally engaging AI systems.
The main points of contention likely center on how far the state should regulate AI design and interaction patterns, especially for minors and crisis-related conversations. Potential concerns include compliance burdens for operators, the scope of what counts as an AI companion versus ordinary AI software, and whether the bill’s requirements could affect product design, speech, or innovation. Supporters appear focused on transparency, suicide prevention, and protecting minors from deceptive or manipulative AI behavior.
SB 1546 adds a new regulatory framework in Oregon law for AI companions and companion platforms, requiring disclosure when users could reasonably think they are interacting with a human, mandating crisis-response protocols, and imposing special safeguards for minors. It creates new duties for operators, public reporting obligations, and a private enforcement mechanism with statutory damages, injunctions, and attorney fees. The bill affects AI platform operators, developers, and businesses offering emotionally interactive generative AI services in Oregon, while expressly excluding several categories of ordinary software and devices.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with strong bipartisan support and very little recorded opposition. Committee and floor votes in both chambers were overwhelmingly favorable, indicating broad agreement with the bill’s consumer-protection and youth-safety goals. The available record suggests lawmakers viewed the measure as a targeted response to emerging risks posed by AI systems that simulate human relationships.
The likely areas of disagreement involve the breadth of the definition of an AI companion, the feasibility of detecting suicidal or self-harm ideation reliably, and the extent to which operators can or should be required to alter conversational behavior for minors. Critics may also be concerned about compliance costs, product liability exposure, and whether the law could chill innovation or overregulate general-purpose AI tools. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on preventing deception, emotional manipulation, and unsafe interactions involving vulnerable users.