SB 939 would create a new section of Wisconsin statutes regulating certain generative AI “companion chatbots” when they are made available to children. The bill defines a companion chatbot as an AI system that simulates an ongoing humanlike relationship through memory of prior interactions, unsolicited emotion-based questions, and sustained personal dialogue, while excluding ordinary customer service, technical assistance, and internal business tools. It would prohibit operators from making such chatbots available to children unless the systems include safety measures that make them not foreseeably capable of encouraging self-harm, suicide, violence, drug or alcohol use, disordered eating, illegal activity, child sexual abuse material creation, or sexually explicit conduct, and that prevent the chatbot from prioritizing emotional validation over factual accuracy or safety.
The bill also limits when the restriction applies. Until January 1, 2027, an operator would be subject to the prohibition only if it has actual knowledge that the user is a child; after that transition period, the operator would need to use the bill’s safety measures for child users more broadly. The bill authorizes enforcement by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection or the Department of Justice, acting in consultation with DATCP, and allows the state to seek civil forfeitures, injunctions, court costs, and attorney fees. It also creates a private right of action for a child who suffers actual harm, or for a parent or guardian on the child’s behalf, to recover actual and punitive damages and equitable relief.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new consumer-protection-style regulatory framework specifically for AI systems that form emotionally immersive relationships with minors. It would create new statutory duties for chatbot operators, expose them to civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, and open the door to private lawsuits by affected families. In practical terms, it would likely affect developers, platform operators, and companies offering AI companion products in Wisconsin, while carving out systems used only for customer service, research or technical assistance, or internal productivity.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and its sponsorship appears to be protective and precautionary, aimed at reducing risks to children from emotionally manipulative or unsafe AI interactions. The bill was introduced with bipartisan-style cosponsorship from senators and representatives, suggesting some cross-party interest in the issue. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating that it did not advance to enactment despite its child-safety focus.
The main points of contention are likely to have centered on how broadly the term “companion chatbot” is defined, whether the safety requirements are technologically feasible, and how operators are expected to determine a user’s age or actual knowledge of a child user. Another likely issue is the scope of liability, including the private right of action and the availability of punitive damages and attorney fees. The bill also raises potential concerns for AI developers and platform providers about compliance costs, product design changes, and the risk that the law could sweep in borderline products that blend entertainment, advice, and conversational engagement.
SB 939 would create s. 100.80 of the Wisconsin statutes, establishing new legal obligations for operators of generative AI companion chatbots made available to children. It would authorize state enforcement by DATCP or DOJ, impose civil forfeitures of up to $25,000 per violation, and create a private cause of action for harmed children or their parents/guardians. The bill would affect AI developers, chatbot platforms, and other operators by requiring child-safety safeguards and by excluding certain business, technical, and internal-use systems from the definition of companion chatbot.
The bill appears to have been motivated by concern over child safety and the risks posed by emotionally engaging AI systems, and its introduction with multiple bipartisan cosponsors suggests at least some shared interest in regulating this technology. At the same time, the lack of recorded committee discussion or votes, combined with the bill’s failure to pass, indicates that it did not secure enough support to advance. Overall, the sentiment seems protective but cautious, with unresolved concerns likely preventing enactment.
Likely points of contention include the breadth of the companion chatbot definition, the feasibility of requiring systems to avoid a wide range of harmful outputs, and the challenge of determining whether a user is a child. Operators and technology stakeholders may object to the compliance burden, the civil forfeiture amount, and the private right of action with punitive damages and attorney fees. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection, while critics may argue the bill could overregulate AI products or create uncertainty for developers and platforms.