Tennessee Senate Bill SB1493

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/18/25
• Engrossed: 4/23/26
• Enrolled: 4/30/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 33; Title 39 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.

Summary

SB1493 directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study artificial intelligence and prepare a report for state leaders. The required study is broad and focused on safety: it must identify risks from AI use, including child safety concerns, risks of death or bodily injury, and property damage, and it must explore ways to reduce those risks. It also calls for review of national and international standards and industry best practices related to AI safety. The bill specifically asks TACIR to examine whether and how AI should be regulated or prohibited from generating dangerous prompts, such as encouragement to commit suicide or violent crime. It also requires TACIR to assess the risks of AI chatbots interacting with users as though they were human, especially when providing emotional support, mental health care, or health care. TACIR must submit its report to the governor and legislative leaders no later than January 31, 2027. The act takes effect upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill does not directly create a new regulatory regime for artificial intelligence, but it does initiate a formal state study that could lead to future legislation affecting AI, consumer protection, public safety, mental health services, and related areas of Tennessee law. It references Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 29, 33, 39, and 47, which cover civil remedies, mental health and developmental disabilities, criminal law, and commerce/consumer matters, signaling that the study may inform changes across those subject areas. Its immediate legal effect is to assign TACIR a reporting mandate rather than impose substantive restrictions on AI providers or users.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage unanimously, and subsequent floor votes on the bill and related amendments were overwhelmingly favorable. The bill appears to have been treated as a precautionary, research-oriented measure rather than a controversial regulatory crackdown, with lawmakers broadly agreeing that the state should better understand AI risks before acting further.

Contention

There is limited evidence of major contention in the available record, but the amendment votes suggest some discussion over the bill’s final scope and wording. The bill’s focus on dangerous AI prompts, chatbot impersonation, and mental health or health care uses indicates the main policy concerns were public safety, child protection, and the potential for harmful reliance on AI systems. Any disagreement appears to have centered more on how the study should be framed and what issues it should prioritize than on whether the state should study AI at all.