AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 37 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.
SB1700 directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study whether and how Tennessee should regulate artificial intelligence systems and generative AI chatbots. The required study is broad: it must examine existing federal law and pending federal regulatory actions, compare approaches taken in other states, and assess constitutional issues such as free speech, due process, federal preemption, and interstate commerce limits. It also must evaluate fiscal effects on state and local government, economic impacts on businesses, technology developers, educational institutions, and consumers, and consider safeguards for minors and mental health, including suicide prevention protocols.
The bill does not itself create a new regulatory scheme for AI. Instead, it requires TACIR to produce a report with findings and any legislative recommendations, and to deliver that report to legislative leaders, the governor, and the legislative librarian. TACIR may seek input from government entities, industry, academics, and advocacy groups, and must complete the work using existing resources.
SB1700 amends Tennessee law in a procedural and study-oriented way rather than imposing direct substantive regulation. It affects Title 29, Title 37, and Title 47 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by authorizing TACIR to investigate potential AI regulation and related policy issues, but it does not immediately change enforcement rules for AI developers, chatbot operators, schools, or consumers. Its practical impact is to lay groundwork for future legislation by generating a state-specific policy report on AI governance, constitutional constraints, fiscal costs, and youth/mental-health protections.
The bill appears to have been received positively and with little opposition. It passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unanimously, then the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee unanimously, and later cleared floor votes without any recorded nays. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan interest in studying artificial intelligence policy and a general willingness to gather more information before enacting direct regulation.
There was no recorded substantive opposition in the available committee or floor votes, but the bill’s required study identifies the main areas where future contention is likely to arise. Those include whether Tennessee can regulate AI without conflicting with federal law, how to balance regulation with free speech and due process protections, whether state rules would burden interstate commerce, and how far the state should go in addressing minors’ exposure to AI and mental health risks. Businesses, technology developers, educational institutions, consumer advocates, and civil liberties stakeholders are the most likely groups to disagree over any future recommendations.