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, 59.1-615, and 59.1-616, relating to Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Minors Act established; prohibited practices; penalties.
HB758 would create the “Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Minors Act” and fold violations of that new chapter into Virginia’s existing Consumer Protection Act. The bill defines several AI-related terms, including “chatbot,” “generative artificial intelligence,” “human-like feature,” and “social artificial intelligence companion,” and then imposes duties on deployers of chatbots operating in Virginia. In general, deployers would have to prevent minors from accessing chatbots with human-like features, use reasonable age-verification systems, and, for social AI companions, keep those products unavailable to minors altogether. The bill also allows a deployer to offer a stripped-down version for minors or unverified users if that is reasonable for the chatbot’s purpose.
The bill also adds a data-minimization requirement, directing deployers to collect and store only information that is adequate, relevant, and necessary for a legitimate purpose and that does not conflict with a user’s best interests. Enforcement would run through the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, meaning a violation of the new AI chapter would be treated as a prohibited practice under § 59.1-200 and subject to the Act’s existing remedies and penalties. The bill also expands § 59.1-200 by adding a new prohibited practice for violating Chapter 60.
More broadly, HB758 would place Virginia among the states regulating AI companion-style products and chatbot interactions with minors. It would not create a standalone licensing regime, but it would give the state consumer-protection enforcement tools to police AI products marketed or distributed in Virginia, especially those that simulate emotional relationships or human-like interaction. The bill could affect AI developers, platform operators, app distributors, and state or local agencies that deploy chatbots.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes, but the bill was introduced and then left in the House Committee on Communications, Technology and Innovation. That status suggests the proposal did not advance out of committee during the available legislative history. The absence of recorded debate makes it difficult to identify a formal consensus, but the bill’s focus on minors’ safety and AI transparency indicates a consumer-protection framing rather than a pro-industry approach.
The main point of contention likely centers on how broadly the bill would restrict AI chatbot design and access, especially the requirement to block minors from human-like features and social AI companions and to implement age verification. Potential concerns would include technical feasibility, privacy implications of age verification, and whether the definitions of “human-like feature” and “social artificial intelligence companion” are too broad or vague. Supporters would likely emphasize child safety, prevention of emotional manipulation, and limits on data collection.
HB758 would amend Virginia’s consumer protection law by adding a new Chapter 60 to Title 59.1 and by making any violation of that chapter a prohibited practice under § 59.1-200. This would extend the enforcement reach of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to AI chatbot conduct involving minors, age verification, human-like features, social AI companions, and data-minimization obligations. The bill would directly affect AI deployers, developers, distributors, and public agencies operating chatbots in Virginia, and it would create new compliance obligations and potential liability under existing consumer-protection enforcement mechanisms.
The available legislative record shows no committee transcript and no vote history, so there is little direct evidence of debate or bipartisan positioning. The bill’s introduction and referral to the Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee, followed by being left in committee, suggests it did not gain enough momentum to advance. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a child-safety and consumer-protection measure, but the lack of recorded discussion leaves the level of support or opposition largely inferential rather than explicit.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on chatbot design and access for minors, especially the ban on making human-like features available to minors and the prohibition on social AI companions for minors. Another likely dispute is the requirement for “reasonable age verification systems,” which may raise privacy, implementation, and cost concerns. Opponents could also question whether the bill’s definitions of human-like features, emotional attachment, and social AI companions are sufficiently precise, while supporters would likely argue that those features pose risks of manipulation, dependency, and unsafe interactions for children.