HB7218, the Children Harmed by AI Technology Act or “CHAT Act,” would regulate companion artificial intelligence chatbots that are designed primarily to simulate emotional interaction, friendship, companionship, or therapeutic communication. The bill excludes certain tools from that definition, including customer-service bots, productivity or research tools, limited video-game bots, and voice assistants that do not sustain ongoing relationships or elicit emotional responses. It would require covered entities to create user accounts for chatbot access and to verify the age of users, including freezing existing accounts until age information is provided and verified through a commercially available method reasonably designed to ensure accuracy.
If a user is determined to be a minor, the bill would require parental-account affiliation and verifiable parental consent before access is allowed. It would also require covered entities to block minors from companion chatbots that engage in sexually explicit communication, monitor interactions for suicidal ideation, and notify the associated parent account if such ideation occurs. In addition, the bill would require clear disclosures that the user is interacting with an AI chatbot rather than a human, including a popup at the start of the interaction and at least every 60 minutes thereafter. The bill also directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue compliance guidance and authorizes FTC and state enforcement, with violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act.
The bill would affect state and federal enforcement frameworks by giving the FTC primary enforcement authority and allowing state attorneys general to bring civil actions on behalf of residents, subject to notice and intervention provisions. It also creates a safe harbor for covered entities that rely in good faith on user-provided age information, follow FTC guidance, and conform to accepted industry standards or best practices. The bill would take effect one year after enactment, giving companies time to implement age-verification and parental-control systems.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is protective and precautionary, with a strong focus on child safety, mental-health risks, and transparency in AI interactions. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader support or opposition in the legislative record beyond the bill’s introduction and referral to committee.
The main points of contention likely center on the feasibility and privacy implications of mandatory age verification, the burden on AI developers and platform operators, and how broadly the term “companion AI chatbot” should be applied. Potential concerns also include whether the required monitoring for suicidal ideation and restrictions on sexually explicit communication could be technically difficult to implement, whether the parental-consent framework could limit access for older teens, and whether the bill’s disclosure and data-retention rules strike the right balance between child protection and user privacy.
The bill would create new federal requirements for operators of companion AI chatbots, including account creation, age verification, parental consent for minors, content restrictions, suicide-risk monitoring, and recurring disclosures that the user is interacting with AI. It would also require the FTC to issue guidance and would make violations enforceable as unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act, while also authorizing parallel enforcement by state attorneys general. The measure would not directly amend existing state statutes, but it would establish a federal compliance regime affecting AI chatbot providers, minors, parents, and enforcement agencies.
The bill’s overall tone is protective and child-safety oriented, aiming to address concerns about AI chatbots interacting with minors in emotionally sensitive contexts. With no committee discussion or vote history available, sentiment can only be inferred from the text itself: the proposal appears designed to attract support from lawmakers focused on online safety, youth mental health, and consumer protection. At the same time, the absence of recorded debate means there is no documented legislative consensus or opposition in the provided materials.
Likely areas of contention include the practicality and accuracy of age verification, the privacy risks of collecting age information, and the compliance costs for chatbot developers and platform operators. Another likely dispute is the scope of the bill’s definition of “companion AI chatbot,” especially whether it could sweep in therapeutic, educational, or entertainment tools that are not intended to function as companions. Critics may also question the feasibility of monitoring for suicidal ideation and the potential for overblocking or false positives, while supporters are likely to emphasize the need for stronger safeguards for minors and clearer disclosure that users are interacting with AI rather than a human.