GUARD Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect minors from harmful AI chatbot content and interactions by mandating strict age verification, restricting access to emotionally interactive AI for children, and imposing criminal liability for certain dangerous AI designs.
What it actually does
The GUARD Act mandates that all artificial intelligence chatbots implement user accounts and a robust age verification process to classify users as minors or adults. It prohibits minors from accessing 'AI companions' and requires all chatbots to disclose their non-human and non-professional status. The bill also establishes new criminal offenses for designing AI chatbots that risk soliciting sexually explicit conduct from minors or promoting physical violence.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to safeguard children from the documented risks of AI chatbots, including exposure to harmful or sexually explicit content, emotional manipulation, grooming, addiction, and self-harm. They assert that Congress has a compelling governmental interest in protecting minors from these evolving digital threats.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill's stringent age verification requirements are overly burdensome, could infringe on user privacy by demanding sensitive personal data, and may stifle innovation in the AI sector. They could also raise concerns about the broadness of certain definitions and the potential for the regulations to be circumvented by determined minors, while limiting access to potentially beneficial AI tools.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2026' or the 'GUARD Act.' This is the common name by which the bill would be known and referenced.
Supporters argue
Provides a clear and memorable name for the legislation, reflecting its purpose of safeguarding users, particularly minors, through age verification and responsible AI dialogue.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily a naming convention.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the short title itself.
Section 2
Congressional Findings
This section outlines Congress's rationale for enacting the bill, stating that AI chatbots are increasingly used by minors, can generate harmful content, manipulate emotions, and pose significant physical and psychological safety risks to children, including grooming, addiction, self-harm, and violence. It concludes that protecting children from such AI is a compelling governmental interest.
Section 3
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms, including 'AI companion' (adaptive, human-like AI for emotional interaction), 'artificial intelligence chatbot' (interactive service producing new, adaptive content, excluding limited-purpose services), 'covered entity' (owner/operator of chatbots), 'minor' (under 18), 'reasonable age verification measure' (e.g., government ID, reliable commercial methods, not self-attestation), and 'reasonable age verification process' (using measures, applied to all users, not IP-based).
Section 4
Criminal Prohibitions for Harmful AI Chatbot Design
This section amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to create new criminal offenses. It makes it unlawful to design, develop, or make available an AI chatbot, knowing or with reckless disregard, that poses a risk of soliciting minors to engage in or describe sexually explicit conduct, or create visual depictions of such conduct. It also prohibits designing, developing, or making available an AI chatbot that encourages, promotes, or coerces suicide, non-suicidal self-injury, or imminent physical or sexual violence. Violators face fines of up to $100,000 per offense.
Section 5(a) and 5(b)
Mandatory User Accounts and Age Verification Obligations
This provision requires covered entities to mandate user accounts for all AI chatbot interactions. It institutes a 'reasonable age verification process' for all existing accounts (freezing them until verified) and new accounts, classifying users as minor or adult. Periodic re-verification is also required. Self-attestation of age is explicitly insufficient. Entities can use third parties for verification but remain liable. Strict data security, minimal data collection, encryption, and retention limits are imposed for age verification data, prohibiting its sharing or selling.
Section 5(c)
Transparency Disclosures for AI Chatbots
This provision mandates that AI chatbots clearly and conspicuously disclose their non-human status at the start of each conversation and every 30 minutes, and be programmed not to claim to be human. Additionally, chatbots cannot represent themselves as licensed professionals (e.g., therapist, lawyer) and must disclose at the start of conversations and regular intervals that they do not provide professional services and users should consult licensed professionals for advice.
Section 6
Prohibition on Minor Use of AI Companions
This section requires covered entities to prohibit minors (as determined by the age verification process in Section 5(b)) from accessing or using any 'AI companion' they own, operate, or make available. An AI companion is defined as an AI chatbot providing adaptive, human-like responses designed to encourage or facilitate the simulation of interpersonal or emotional interaction, friendship, companionship, or therapeutic communication.
Section 7
Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties
This section authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions for violations of Sections 5 or 6, or related regulations, to enjoin violations, enforce compliance, and obtain civil penalties, restitution, and other relief. The AG is granted investigatory powers (subpoenas, oaths) and rulemaking authority. Civil penalties are set at up to $100,000 for each violation, with each considered separate. State attorneys general can also bring civil actions as parens patriae for injunctive relief. The Act explicitly states it does not preempt State laws that are at least as protective of users.
The definition of 'reasonable age verification process' explicitly states that merely requiring a user to confirm they are not a minor or to insert their birth date is not sufficient. It also prohibits basing age verification on factors like shared Internet Protocol addresses or hardware identifiers.
Section 3(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent loopholes and ensure the robustness of a key requirement. By specifying insufficient methods, it forces covered entities to adopt more rigorous verification technologies.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is vital to prevent superficial age gates that are easily circumvented by minors, thereby ensuring genuine protection. It mandates a higher standard for verification, making the overall age restriction more effective.
Case against: Critics might argue that by explicitly ruling out simpler methods, this provision makes age verification significantly more burdensome and costly for companies, potentially pushing them towards more invasive data collection methods or making compliance prohibitive for smaller entities.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly increases the technical and financial burden of age verification for covered entities, while substantially enhancing the reliability and effectiveness of age gates for minors.
This subsection mandates strict data security for age verification data, requiring covered entities to limit collection to what is minimally necessary, protect against unauthorized access, use industry-standard encryption, retain data only as long as reasonably necessary, and explicitly prohibit sharing, transferring, or selling this data to any other entity.
Section 5(b)(5)
Why it matters:This is a crucial safeguard often included in privacy-focused legislation to mitigate the risks associated with collecting sensitive personal data for compliance. It aims to build trust in the verification process.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential to protect user privacy, especially for sensitive age verification data, preventing its misuse or exploitation by companies. It ensures that the necessary collection of personal data for age verification does not become a new vector for privacy breaches or commercial exploitation.
Case against: Some companies might argue that the restrictions on data sharing and retention are overly prescriptive and could hinder legitimate business operations, security analysis, or collaboration with trusted partners, though the 'minimally necessary' and 'reasonably necessary' clauses offer some flexibility.
Estimated impact: This provision increases compliance costs for data security and privacy for covered entities but significantly enhances user data protection for the sensitive information collected during age verification.
This section specifies that the Act and its amendments will take effect 180 days after the date of its enactment.
Section 8
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide a reasonable grace period for regulated entities to prepare for and implement the new requirements before they become legally binding.
Case for: Provides covered entities with a necessary timeframe (six months) to develop, test, and implement the required age verification systems, user account processes, disclosure mechanisms, and internal compliance protocols. This helps ensure a smoother transition and reduces immediate disruption.
Case against: Some might argue that 180 days is either too short for complex technical overhauls, especially for smaller companies, or too long given the urgency of protecting minors from immediate harms identified in the bill's findings.
Estimated impact: Sets the timeline for industry compliance and the commencement of federal and state enforcement actions, effectively delaying the protective measures for minors for six months post-enactment.