Tennessee House Bill HB1246

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/16/26
• Introduced: 2/6/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 12; Title 39; Title 45; Title 47; Title 48; Title 50; Title 55; Title 61; Title 62; Title 65; Title 66; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to artificial intelligence.

Summary

HB1246 is a narrow artificial intelligence oversight measure. It directs the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter, using existing resources, to study and report on investigations under the state’s consumer protection law in which artificial intelligence was used to carry out an unfair or deceptive act or practice in trade or commerce. The report must cover investigations involving conduct occurring from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025, and must be delivered by July 1, 2026, to the chairs of the House consumer protection committee and the Senate commerce and labor committee. The bill does not create new substantive AI regulations or penalties. Instead, it requires a data-gathering and reporting exercise aimed at understanding how AI may be involved in deceptive trade practices under existing law. The measure is effective immediately upon becoming law, reflecting an intent to begin the study promptly.

Impact

HB1246 would amend Tennessee’s consumer protection framework in Title 47 by adding a reporting requirement for the Attorney General related to AI-enabled unfair or deceptive practices. It affects the Attorney General’s office and the legislative committees overseeing consumer protection and commerce, but it does not directly change liability standards, enforcement powers, or regulated-party obligations. Its practical effect is to generate information that could inform future policy or enforcement decisions regarding artificial intelligence in commerce.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and informational rather than controversial. The bill is framed as a study and reporting requirement, which typically suggests a cautious, exploratory approach to AI oversight rather than immediate regulation. No opposition or support is documented in the supplied context.

Contention

No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided transcripts or voting history, because none were included. Potential areas of interest, however, would likely include whether the Attorney General can complete the study using existing resources, how broadly “artificial intelligence” and “unfair or deceptive act or practice” will be interpreted, and whether the report could lead to future regulation of AI in consumer transactions. Any disagreement would likely center on the scope and usefulness of the study rather than on direct compliance burdens.