Tell users that an AI companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human, at the start and at least every three hours
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225), ESHB 2225 (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026), sec. 3
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
Tell users that an AI companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human, at the start and at least every three hours is a legal requirement under the Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225) in Washington State (United States) (ESHB 2225 (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026), sec. 3). It applies from 1 January 2027.
- Jurisdiction
- Washington State (United States)
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- ESHB 2225 (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026), sec. 3
- Applies from
- 1 January 2027
- 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?
An operator (anyone who makes an AI companion chatbot available to users in Washington, or controls access to it) must give a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the chatbot is artificially generated and not human. The notice is given at the beginning of the interaction and again at least every three hours while the interaction continues. The operator must also take reasonable measures to stop the chatbot from claiming to be human, including when the user asks, and from producing any other output that contradicts the disclosure.
Practical action
Show a prominent "you are talking to an AI, not a person" notice when each interaction starts and on a timer of three hours or less, and instruct and test the model so it never says or implies it is human, especially when asked directly.
Who does it apply to?
- Sectors
- Consumer products and retail
- Use cases
- Customer service and chatbots
Applies from:
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.
-
satisfiesProcessProduct owner · at launch and on material changeAI interaction and use disclosure notices
Serves 23 recorded duties · evidence: AI interaction or use notice, Notice catalogue, Notice wording approval
The notice at the start and at least every three hours that the user is talking to an AI.
-
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
Adversarial testing that the chatbot cannot be led to claim it is human or contradict the notice.
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 Agent Registry and Permission Matrix
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v7
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v47
- AI Companion Chatbot Safety Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v1
- AI Model Card
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v5
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Screenshots or recordings of the opening notice and the repeated notice, with the timer setting | document | |
| Test results showing the chatbot does not claim to be human when asked | document |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225) (ESHB 2225 (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026), sec. 3).
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 1 January 2027.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Screenshots or recordings of the opening notice and the repeated notice, with the timer setting; Test results showing the chatbot does not claim to be human when asked.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Adversarial and red-team testing for generative AI; AI interaction and use disclosure notices.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Show a prominent "you are talking to an AI, not a person" notice when each interaction starts and on a timer of three hours or less, and instruct and test the model so it never says or implies it is human, especially when asked directly.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Tell users that an AI companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human, at the start and at least every three hours (Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225))” [AIPT-OBL-0123, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0123 (accessed 12 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0123: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Washington State Legislature: HB 2225 (2025-26) bill summary, Washington State Legislature, https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2225-S.SL.pdf.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_tellusersthatanaicompani,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Tell users that an AI companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human, at the start and at least every three hours (Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225))}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-washington-eshb-2225-ai-disclosure}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-washington-eshb-2225-ai-disclosure},
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
- Give consumers a Pre-use Notice before using automated decision-making technology for a significant decision — California CPPA automated decision-making rules, California (United States)
- Answer consumers' requests to access information about how automated decision-making technology was used about them — California CPPA automated decision-making rules, California (United States)
- Tell users at the start of an AI companion interaction, and at least every three hours, that they are not communicating with a human — New York AI companion safeguards, New York (United States)
- Where the user is known to be a minor or the chatbot is directed to minors, repeat the not-human notice at least every hour — Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225), Washington State (United States)
- Publish the self-harm protocol and the number of crisis referral notifications issued in the preceding calendar year — Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225), Washington State (United States)
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content — EU AI Act, European Union
- Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way — EU AI Act, European Union
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.