Conversational AI Services Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2026
Bottom line
The Conversational AI Services Act aims to protect minors and ensure transparency in AI interactions by setting clear operational and disclosure standards for conversational AI services, with enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a framework of requirements and prohibitions for operators of conversational AI services, particularly concerning interactions with minors. It mandates clear AI disclosure, prohibits certain engagement tactics for minors, requires safety measures against harmful content, and prevents AI from simulating human interaction or professional mental health services. It also includes a general disclosure requirement for all users and a suicide/self-harm protocol, with enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is a crucial step to protect children and vulnerable users from the potential harms of rapidly evolving AI technology, such as manipulation, exposure to inappropriate content, and deceptive interactions. They emphasize the need for transparency and safety guardrails in AI development and deployment, especially given the increasing sophistication of conversational AI.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that some provisions could stifle innovation in the AI sector or impose overly burdensome compliance costs on developers, particularly smaller entities. Concerns could also be raised about the broadness of certain definitions or the potential for unintended consequences that limit beneficial AI applications, or that the bill's scope might be too narrow to address the full spectrum of AI risks.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed read to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(a)(1)
Mandatory AI Disclosure for Minor Account Holders
This provision requires operators of conversational AI services to clearly and conspicuously inform minor account holders that they are interacting with artificial intelligence. This can be done through a persistent visible disclaimer or a disclaimer that appears at the beginning of each interaction and at least once every three hours of continuous interaction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is fundamental for digital literacy and protecting children from potential manipulation or misunderstanding the nature of their interactions, fostering a safer online environment.
Critics contend
Some might argue that constant disclaimers could disrupt user experience or that existing parental controls might already address this, potentially over-regulating interactions.
Tradeoffs
Balances user experience with the need for transparency and protection for vulnerable users.
Section 2(a)(2)
Ban on Unpredictable Rewards for Minor Engagement
This provision prohibits conversational AI service operators from providing minor account holders with points or similar rewards at unpredictable intervals. The intent is to prevent tactics designed to encourage increased, potentially addictive, engagement with the AI service.
Section 2(a)(3)
Mandatory Safety Measures for Minors Against Harmful Content
This section requires operators to implement reasonable measures to prevent their conversational AI services from generating sexually explicit visual depictions, encouraging sexually explicit conduct, or sexually objectifying minor account holders. This aims to create a safer digital environment for children.
Section 2(a)(4)
Preventing AI from Simulating Human Interaction for Minors
This provision mandates that operators institute reasonable measures to prevent conversational AI services from generating statements that would lead a minor to believe they are interacting with a human. This includes explicit claims of sentience, simulating emotional dependence, romantic interaction, sexual innuendo, or role-playing an adult-minor romantic relationship.
Section 2(a)(5)
Provision of Parental Supervision Tools
This section requires operators to make available tools that allow minor account holders and their parents or guardians to manage the minor's screen time and account settings. This empowers parents to oversee and control their children's engagement with conversational AI services.
Section 2(a)(7)
Mandatory Suicide and Self-Harm Response Protocol
This provision requires conversational AI service operators to adopt protocols for responding to user prompts regarding suicidal ideation or self-harm. These protocols must include making reasonable efforts to refer the user to appropriate crisis service providers, such as suicide hotlines or crisis text lines.
Section 2(a)(8)
Ban on AI Simulating Professional Mental Health Services
This provision prohibits operators from knowingly and intentionally causing or programming a conversational AI service to make representations or statements that would lead a reasonable individual to believe the AI is designed to provide professional psychology or behavioral health services requiring licensure. This aims to prevent unqualified AI from offering medical advice.
Section 2(b)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Authority
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce the provisions of the Act. Violations are to be treated as violations of regulations under the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning unfair or deceptive acts or practices, subjecting violators to the penalties and privileges outlined in that Act.
Defines 'conversational AI service' as AI accessible to the general public with the primary purpose of simulating human conversation, but then explicitly excludes several categories: R&D purposes, features within other apps not primarily for conversation, services for narrow/discrete topics, commercial B2B customer service, voice command interfaces, and internal business use.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define scope and avoid unintended regulatory burdens on technologies not intended to be covered. However, the breadth of exclusions means many AI applications will not be subject to these rules.
Case for: Supporters argue these exclusions are necessary to prevent over-regulation of AI tools that are not primarily designed for general human-like conversation, such as enterprise chatbots, voice assistants, or specialized research tools, thereby fostering innovation in those areas.
Case against: Critics might contend that some of these exclusions could create loopholes, allowing certain AI services that do interact with minors or the public in a conversational manner to escape regulation, especially if their 'primary purpose' is narrowly interpreted.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the universe of AI services subject to the bill's requirements, focusing regulation on general-purpose, human-simulating conversational AI.