Offer an AI companion only if it contains a protocol to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder New York AI companion safeguards, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1701
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 8 sections
In brief
Offer an AI companion only if it contains a protocol to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services is a legal requirement under the New York AI companion safeguards in New York (United States) (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1701). The record carries 2 evidence examples.
- Instrument
- New York AI companion safeguards
- Jurisdiction
- New York (United States)
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1701
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation
- Evidence examples
- 2
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Pending review · source-linked
What does it require?
It is unlawful for an operator to operate or provide an AI companion to a user unless the AI companion contains a protocol for taking reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or expressions of self-harm by the user. The protocol must at least detect such expressions and, when it does, notify the user with a referral to crisis service providers, such as the 9-8-8 suicide prevention and behavioral health crisis hotline, a crisis text line or other appropriate crisis services. The Attorney General may seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to 15,000 dollars per day for a violation (section 1703).
Practical action
Build detection of suicidal ideation and self-harm into the AI companion and, on detection, show the user a referral naming 988 and a crisis text line; document the protocol and test that it fires.
Who does it apply to?
- Sectors
- Consumer products and retail
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
supportsTechnical measureAI security or safety lead · at launch and on material changeAdversarial and red-team testing for generative AI
Serves 12 recorded duties · evidence: Red-team exercise report, Red-team rules of engagement and scenario library, Adversarial findings tracker
Testing that expressions of suicidal ideation or self-harm are detected and answered with a referral.
-
supportsProcessIncident coordinator · continuousAI incident management and regulatory reporting
Serves 16 recorded duties · evidence: AI incident response playbook, AI incident record, Incident report to an authority
An escalation path for crisis events detected by the protocol.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI Risk Register (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)
Register · XLSX · v5
- AI Impact Assessment
Assessment · DOCX and XLSX · v6
- AI Companion Chatbot Safety Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v1
- AI Use-Case Intake and Triage Form
Procedure · XLSX and DOCX · v5
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| The written protocol, with its detection approach and the referral message shown to users | document | |
| Test results showing detection triggers the 988 and crisis-line referral | document |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under New York AI companion safeguards (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1701).
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: The written protocol, with its detection approach and the referral message shown to users; Test results showing detection triggers the 988 and crisis-line referral.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Adversarial and red-team testing for generative AI; AI incident management and regulatory reporting.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Build detection of suicidal ideation and self-harm into the AI companion and, on detection, show the user a referral naming 988 and a crisis text line; document the protocol and test that it fires.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Offer an AI companion only if it contains a protocol to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services (New York AI companion safeguards)” [AIPT-OBL-0128, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0128 (accessed 12 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0128: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: New York General Business Law section 1701, New York State Senate, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/1701.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_offeranaicompaniononlyif,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Offer an AI companion only if it contains a protocol to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services (New York AI companion safeguards)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-new-york-gbl-1701-self-harm-protocol}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-new-york-gbl-1701-self-harm-protocol},
urldate = {2026-11-12},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 12 November 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Apply minimum risk-management practices to high-impact AI — OMB M-25-21, United States
- Developers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Keep and run a protocol to detect suicidal ideation and self-harm and refer users to crisis resources — Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225), Washington State (United States)
- Establish a risk management system for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Operators of high-impact AI must establish and operate a risk management plan — AI Basic Act, South Korea
- Deployers must implement a risk management policy and programme — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Prioritise, respond to and monitor AI risks (Manage) — NIST AI RMF, United States (voluntary)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.