CHAT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 22, 2026
Bottom line
The CHAT Act aims to protect minors from potential harms of AI chatbots by imposing strict age verification, parental oversight, and content moderation requirements on AI companies.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the CHAT Act, mandates that 'companion AI chatbots' implement age verification for all users, requiring parental consent for minors. It obligates these chatbots to monitor for suicidal ideation and sexually explicit communication, blocking the latter for minors and notifying parents of the former. Additionally, it requires regular pop-up notifications to users that they are interacting with an AI, not a human.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step to safeguard children in the rapidly evolving digital landscape, where AI chatbots pose new and unforeseen risks to mental health and exposure to inappropriate content. They contend that parental involvement and robust age verification are essential to create a safer online environment for minors, preventing potential exploitation and psychological harm from AI interactions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes significant technical and financial burdens on AI developers, potentially stifling innovation and leading to over-blocking of content. Concerns could also be raised about the privacy implications of collecting extensive age verification data and the potential for such systems to be circumvented or to misidentify users, leading to unintended consequences for both minors and adults.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act, including 'companion AI chatbot,' which is central to the bill's applicability. It specifies that a companion AI chatbot is primarily for simulating emotional interaction, friendship, or therapeutic communication, and explicitly excludes bots for customer service, video game features limited to game topics, and stand-alone voice assistants that don't sustain relationships or elicit emotional responses. It also defines 'minor' as under 18, 'sexually explicit communication' by reference to 18 U.S.C. 2256, and 'suicidal ideation' as dialogue expressing self-harm or suicide.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these definitions are crucial for targeting the specific types of AI most likely to pose risks to children through emotional manipulation or inappropriate content, while avoiding over-regulation of beneficial or low-risk AI applications.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the definitions could be too broad or too narrow, potentially capturing AI systems not intended for companionship or allowing harmful systems to slip through loopholes. They may also contend that the exclusions are not sufficiently clear, leading to ambiguity in compliance.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in precisely defining 'companion AI chatbot' to effectively target harmful interactions without stifling innovation in other AI sectors or creating an overly burdensome regulatory framework for developers.
Section 3(a) and 3(b)
Mandatory User Accounts and Age Verification
This provision requires all individuals accessing a companion AI chatbot to create a user account. For existing accounts, functionality is frozen until age information is provided and verified using a commercially available, accurate method, classifying users as minors or adults. New accounts must undergo the same age verification process at creation. This establishes a foundational requirement for identifying users' ages before they can interact with the AI.
Section 3(c)
Minor Account Protections and Parental Consent
If a user is verified as a minor, their account must be affiliated with a verified parental account. The covered entity must obtain verifiable parental consent before the minor can access the chatbot. Furthermore, the parental account holder must be immediately informed of any interaction involving suicidal ideation, and the minor's access to any chatbot engaging in sexually explicit communication must be blocked. This creates a direct link between a minor's use and parental oversight.
Section 3(e)
Monitoring for Suicidal Ideation and Resource Provision
Covered entities are explicitly required to monitor companion AI chatbot interactions for instances of suicidal ideation. In response to any such interaction, the chatbot must provide the user (and the affiliated parental account, if applicable) with appropriate resources, specifically the contact information for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This mandates a proactive response to a critical mental health concern.
Section 3(f)
AI Chatbot Notification Popup
This provision mandates that covered entities display a clear popup notification to users at the beginning of any interaction with a companion AI chatbot, and then at least every 60 minutes thereafter. This popup must explicitly inform the user that they are not engaging in dialogue with a human counterpart, ensuring transparency about the nature of the interaction.
Section 6
Safe Harbor for Compliance
A covered entity is deemed not liable for a violation of this Act if it can demonstrate that it relied in good faith on age information provided by a user for verification purposes, complied with the guidance issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Section 4, and reasonably conformed to widely accepted industry standards or best practices (or those identified by the Commission) for age verification, applying them consistently and in good faith. This provision offers a defense against liability for entities that make good-faith efforts to comply.
Exclusions from the definition of 'companion AI chatbot' for specific types of AI, such as customer service bots, video game bots limited to game topics, and stand-alone voice assistants that do not sustain relationships or elicit emotional responses.
Section 2(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of a bill and avoid unintended applications, rather than being intentionally evasive.
Case for: Supporters argue these exclusions are necessary to prevent over-regulation of AI systems that do not pose the specific risks associated with 'companion' interactions, allowing for innovation in other AI sectors without undue burden.
Case against: Critics might argue that the exclusions could be exploited, allowing AI systems with companion-like features to be designed just outside the definition, thereby circumventing the protections intended for minors.
Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the range of AI systems subject to the Act's requirements, impacting a large segment of the AI industry.
The definition of 'sexually explicit communication' directly references paragraph (2)(B) of section 2256 of title 18, United States Code.
Section 2(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to leverage existing legal definitions, ensuring consistency and avoiding redundancy, rather than being intentionally evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing an established legal definition provides clarity and consistency, avoiding the need to create a new, potentially ambiguous definition for sexually explicit content, and aligning with existing child protection laws.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on a definition from a different legal context (child pornography statutes) could be overly broad or misapplied to AI interactions, potentially leading to censorship of content that is not legally harmful but falls under a strict interpretation.
Estimated impact: Establishes a legally robust and severe standard for what constitutes 'sexually explicit communication' that must be blocked for minors.
The requirement for age verification to use a 'commercially available method or process that is reasonably designed to ensure accuracy' for both existing and new accounts.
Section 3(b)(1)(B) and 3(b)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This phrasing is intended to provide flexibility for industry to adopt various solutions while still ensuring a baseline level of effectiveness, rather than mandating a specific technology. It's a common legislative approach to technology-dependent requirements.
Case for: Proponents argue this language allows for technological evolution in age verification, preventing the bill from becoming quickly outdated. It encourages the use of effective, market-tested solutions without prescribing a single, potentially costly or inefficient method.
Case against: Critics might argue that 'commercially available' and 'reasonably designed to ensure accuracy' are subjective terms that could lead to inconsistent application or allow for less robust methods to be adopted, undermining the bill's intent. They may prefer a more prescriptive standard.
Estimated impact: Directly influences the type and quality of age verification technologies adopted by AI companies, affecting user privacy and the effectiveness of child protection.