A BILL to amend and reenact § 59.1-200 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 59.1 a chapter numbered 60, consisting of sections numbered 59.1-614 through 59.1-620, relating to Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act established; prohibited practices; penalties.
HB635 proposes to create the “Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act” in Title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia and to amend Virginia’s consumer protection law, § 59.1-200. Based on the bill caption, the measure would establish a new chapter governing chatbot-related practices and would add prohibited practices and penalties related to artificial intelligence chatbots. The text provided also shows an amendment to the existing list of unlawful fraudulent acts in consumer transactions, indicating the bill is intended to fit chatbot regulation into Virginia’s broader consumer protection framework.
The bill’s impact would be to expand state law into the area of artificial intelligence and automated conversational systems, likely imposing compliance obligations on businesses that deploy chatbots in consumer-facing settings. By amending § 59.1-200 and creating a new chapter in Title 59.1, the bill would give the Commonwealth additional authority to treat certain chatbot practices as unlawful consumer fraud or deceptive conduct, with penalties available for violations. The specific operational requirements are not fully visible in the excerpt, but the structure indicates a new regulatory regime for AI chatbot use in commerce.
The general sentiment reflected in the available history is limited, but the bill appears to have advanced at least through committee consideration without recorded opposition in the provided materials. Its last action was a voice vote continuation to the next session in the House Committee on Communications, Technology and Innovation, which suggests the measure was still under review rather than decisively rejected. Because no vote tally or transcript is provided, there is no clear evidence of strong support or opposition in the record excerpt.
The main point of contention likely concerns how far the state should go in regulating artificial intelligence chatbots and whether the bill’s prohibitions and penalties could impose burdens on technology companies, online businesses, or customer-service operators. Supporters would likely frame the bill as a consumer protection and transparency measure aimed at preventing deception, while critics may worry about overbroad definitions, compliance costs, or unintended effects on innovation and automated services. The absence of detailed committee discussion limits certainty, but the bill’s focus on AI regulation suggests the central debate is between consumer protection and technological flexibility.
HB635 would amend Virginia’s consumer protection statute, § 59.1-200, and add a new chapter in Title 59.1 establishing an Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Act. This would extend state law into chatbot and AI-related commercial practices, creating new prohibited conduct and penalty exposure for covered actors, especially businesses using chatbots in consumer transactions.
The available record suggests a neutral-to-cautious committee posture rather than a clearly polarized debate. The bill was continued to the next session by voice vote, indicating it remained under consideration and had not yet reached a final contested vote. No transcript or roll-call vote is provided, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred as procedural interest with unresolved policy questions.
Likely points of contention include the scope of the new chatbot restrictions, how broadly the law would apply to businesses and technology providers, and whether the penalties are appropriate for AI-related consumer practices. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing deception and protecting consumers from misleading automated interactions, while opponents may argue the bill could be too broad, difficult to enforce, or burdensome for innovation and routine customer-service automation. Because no committee transcript is included, the specific objections and proponents are not identified in the record excerpt.