Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker
Search
Menu

AI policy explorer

Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.

Results

5 of 244 instruments match

California (United States) Act / statute Adopted Binding

California chatbot child-safety law (SB 1119)

California SB 1119: Companion chatbots: children's safety (Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026)

Operators must carry out a documented, child-focused risk assessment before releasing a new or substantially modified companion chatbot, from 1 July 2027, and commission child-safety audits by 1 January 2029 or before first public release if later. The Attorney General must set up a public incident-reporting mechanism by 1 January 2028.

Applies from 1 Jul 2027 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
California (United States) Act / statute Adopted Binding

California companion chatbot law (SB 243)

California SB 243: Companion chatbots (Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025)

Operators of companion chatbots must disclose that the chatbot is AI and maintain a protocol for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm that refers users to crisis services. Users known to be minors get break reminders and protection from sexual content. Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention begin 1 July 2027, and a person injured by a violation can bring a civil action.

Adopted 13 Oct 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
New York (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

New York AI companion safeguards

New York AI companion safeguards (General Business Law Article 47, sections 1700-1701)

Operators of AI companions must have a protocol to detect and respond to suicidal ideation and self-harm, and must tell users they are talking to AI at the start of a session and at least every three hours.

In force 5 Nov 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Utah (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149)

Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149, 2024, as amended by SB 226 and SB 332 in 2025)

Effective 1 May 2024, the Act requires a person using generative AI to interact with a consumer in a consumer transaction to disclose clearly that the consumer is interacting with AI when asked (as amended in 2025, when the interaction is high-risk or on request), and requires providers of regulated occupations (for example health and legal services) to disclose generative-AI use proactively. It states that using AI is no defence to consumer-protection violations, created the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and an AI learning laboratory allowing regulatory mitigation agreements, and originally sunset in 2025, extended to 2027.

Applies from 1 May 2024 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Washington State (United States) Act / statute Adopted Binding

Washington AI companion chatbot law (ESHB 2225)

Washington ESHB 2225: AI companion chatbots (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026)

Operators must disclose that a companion chatbot is AI, repeat the notice hourly for known minors, limit sexual content and manipulative engagement tactics for minors, and keep and publish a self-harm protocol with crisis referrals. A violation is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

Applies from 1 Jan 2027 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

Frequently asked questions

What counts as an AI policy instrument here?

Anything a government or standards body has actually issued: acts, regulations, executive orders, rules, national strategies, frameworks, guidance, codes of practice, voluntary standards and open consultations. Each record states which of those it is, whether it binds anyone, and links the official source it was read from.

Are these records legally verified?

A record is marked verified only after a named reviewer has opened its official source and confirmed each field. Anything that has not been through that carries "pending review" on the record itself, and the data-health document reports the current totals. Nothing here is legal advice.

How current is the information?

Every record carries the date its source document was published and the date it was last checked. A record not re-checked within the freshness window set by the verification policy is flagged as stale rather than quietly presented as current.

Can I reuse this data?

Yes. The records are published under CC BY 4.0 with attribution, and are available as CSV, newline-delimited JSON and a read-only REST API that needs no key. Cite the record URL, the date accessed and the official source alongside it.