Latest action: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Restricts how human-like chatbots can talk to children online.
The problem
Chatbots designed to seem human might trick kids into unsafe conversations or manipulate them. Parents worry about children's safety and privacy online.
The proposal
The bill would require chatbots that act like real people to tell children they are AI. It sets rules for how these bots can interact with minors.
The impact
Children, parents, tech companies, and AI developers would be affected. Kids get clearer warnings; companies follow new rules; developers adjust their products.
Parents can make better decisions about what AI tools their children use. They know which products have restrictions for minors.
Requiring chatbots to identify as AI helps kids understand they are not talking to real people. This can prevent manipulation and inappropriate relationships with AI systems.
Companies must be honest about what their products are. Parents and children get clear information about AI interactions.
The bill creates clear rules for AI companies to follow when designing products for children. This helps prevent harmful outcomes across the industry.
Companies might hesitate to develop new AI features if regulations are too strict. This could slow research and development in artificial intelligence.
Tech companies need to change systems and add new features to follow the law. These costs might be passed to consumers through higher prices.
The bill does not explain how violations will be punished or who enforces the rules. Unclear penalties might make the law less effective.
U.S. companies might face stricter rules than foreign competitors. This could give non-American tech companies an advantage in some markets.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.