Tennessee Senate Bill SB1363

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• 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

SB1363 is a narrow reporting bill focused on artificial intelligence and consumer protection enforcement. It directs the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter, using existing resources, to study and report on investigations involving violations of Tennessee’s consumer protection law where AI was used to carry out an unfair or deceptive act or practice in trade or commerce. The report must be submitted by July 1, 2026, and must cover investigations involving conduct that occurred between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025. The bill does not create new substantive AI regulations or penalties. Instead, it adds a data-gathering and oversight requirement to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 47, Chapter 18, Part 1, which governs unfair or deceptive trade practices. The practical effect is to give lawmakers and oversight committees a clearer picture of how AI may be used in consumer fraud or deceptive business practices, potentially informing future legislation or enforcement priorities.

Impact

SB1363 amends Tennessee’s consumer protection framework by requiring a one-time report from the Attorney General on AI-related unfair or deceptive trade practice investigations. Its impact is procedural rather than regulatory: it does not change the underlying standards for liability, expand enforcement powers, or impose obligations on businesses or consumers. The bill primarily affects the Attorney General’s office and legislative committees with jurisdiction over consumer protection and commerce, while indirectly affecting any parties investigated under the state’s deceptive trade practices law.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill is generally neutral to favorable in tone, with no recorded committee debate or votes indicating opposition. Because the measure is limited to a study and report using existing resources, it appears designed as a low-cost oversight step rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of transcripts or voting detail means there is no documented public disagreement in the provided materials.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided bill history or committee materials. If concerns were raised, they are not reflected in the record here. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill’s structure, could include whether the Attorney General has sufficient existing resources to complete the study, whether the reporting requirement is too limited to capture broader AI harms, or whether the legislature should enact direct AI regulation instead of merely collecting data.