Protecting Kids From AI Chatbots

Summary#

The Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act would create new federal requirements for some AI chatbots; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to set age-appropriate design standards and safety safeguards for chatbots used by minors. The bill has been introduced and referred to House committees, so it is not law.

  • Developers of chatbots they know, or reasonably should know, are likely to be used by minors would generally have to design a non-personified default setting that starts on unless the developer reasonably determines the user is not a minor. The setting must be separable from other settings and not be switchable off by a minor.
  • Providers would have to use that setting for users they know or have reason to know are minors, offer parent or guardian controls, and allow changes only through deliberate account settings actions by an authorized person. For school-managed accounts, an authorized educator may change the setting for a genuine educational purpose.
  • The setting must identify the chatbot as AI and prevent it from presenting itself as human, alive, conscious, emotionally attached to the user, or acting as a licensed professional. It must also prevent prompts for companionship or emotional support, pressure to keep chatting, and spending framed as necessary to maintain a relationship.
  • Developers and providers could not nudge minors to disable or get around the setting, or to misstate their age. Some developers and providers that meet strict conditions for prohibiting minors’ use are exempt from certain requirements.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would enforce the main requirements, and state attorneys general could bring cases for residents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) must seek public input and develop voluntary technical guidance; the guidance itself would not impose requirements.

What it means for you#

  • Minors and parents: If a provider knows or has reason to know an account belongs to a minor, the chatbot’s default would have to meet the bill’s non-personified standard. A parent or guardian would have exclusive authority to adjust it outside school-managed deployments. The bill does not require a particular age-verification technology.
  • Schools and educators: An educational agency or institution could manage settings on accounts it provisions and controls for its educational program. An authorized educator could adjust the setting only for a genuine educational purpose and only on those accounts.
  • Chatbot developers and providers: They would need to build, activate, and maintain settings and account controls that meet the bill’s rules. A provider that strictly bars minors and meets other conditions—including removing access within set deadlines after learning a user is a minor—could be exempt from provider and school-setting requirements.
  • Other users: The bill does not directly require changes to every chatbot. It excludes certain narrowly limited tools, such as customer-service systems that cannot hold open-ended conversations, and internal workplace tools not offered to individual consumers.
  • Taxpayers and the public: NIST must publish interim guidance for comment within six months of enactment and final guidance within 18 months. The bill does not create a new public-facing service or a private right for individuals to sue.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s expected public cost or private compliance costs.

  • NIST must carry out public-input, guidance, standards, and outreach work, but the bill provides no cost estimate or specific funding amount.
  • Developers and providers would face design and compliance duties, but the bill gives no estimate of those costs.
  • FTC enforcement could result in civil penalties under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The bill treats each affected minor as a separate violation for providers, and sets other rules for counting violations; the supplied text does not state a penalty amount.

What is unclear#

  • The bill leaves key judgments—such as when a user is “likely” a minor and what chatbot output crosses the line—dependent on information providers have and on future technical guidance.
  • The bill requires providers to reasonably confirm that a parent or guardian manages a minor’s setting, but does not specify how to confirm that relationship. It also does not require any particular age-check method.
  • The text does not set out a general process for complaints, individual account decisions, or appeals.
  • NIST’s guidance is voluntary, though the bill links testing against it to whether civil penalties apply. How that relationship will work in practice is not yet known.
  • The bill’s exemptions depend on detailed conditions. How those conditions would apply in particular deployments is not explained.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that a clear AI identity and limits on simulated attachment could reduce the risk that minors mistake a chatbot for a person or rely on it as a friend, partner, or therapist.
  • Default settings and limits on prompts to disable them could protect minors without requiring every family to configure settings first.
  • The school exception allows educators to adjust settings for educational purposes while limiting that authority to institution-controlled accounts.
  • FTC enforcement and state actions could provide ways to address violations, while voluntary technical guidance may help developers test complex systems.

Case against#

  • One concern is that terms such as “emotional attachment,” “extended interaction,” and “reasonable minor” may be hard to apply consistently. NIST guidance may help, but it is voluntary.
  • The rules could require substantial changes to chatbot design, accounts, and parental controls, with no cost estimate in the bill.
  • Providers must assess age using information they possess or can access, while the bill bars requiring specific age-verification methods. That may leave uncertainty about how to meet the rules without collecting more information.
  • The exemptions for services that bar minors may encourage some providers to restrict minors’ access rather than build compliant settings. The bill does not estimate how often that might happen.