SCS/SB 1444 - The act provides that no person or entity that develops or deploys artificial intelligence (AI) shall advertise or represent to the public that the AI is or is able to act as a mental health professional, as defined in the act, or is capable of providing therapy services, psychotherapy services, or a mental health diagnosis. A violation under the act shall be considered an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Attorney General shall enforce the provisions of the act. Any individual may report violations of the act to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General finds that a violation occurred, the Attorney General shall commence a civil action. If the court finds that a violation occurred, the court may grant relief as described in the act. The act is substantially similar to provisions in HCS/HBs 1887, 2361, 1913, 2862 & 2321 (2026). JULIA SHEVELEVA

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Patty Lewis

SB 1444 establishes Missouri regulations for artificial intelligence use in mental health services, setting standards for patient safety, data protection, and clinical oversight of AI-assisted treatments.

SCS Voted Do Pass S General Laws Committee (5255S.04C)

Legislative bill overview

SB 1444 establishes regulatory frameworks and provisions governing the use of artificial intelligence technologies in mental health treatment and services within Missouri. The bill addresses how AI can be deployed in clinical settings while establishing safeguards for patient care and data protection. It sets standards for AI application in mental health contexts to balance innovation with patient safety.

Why is this important

Mental health services are increasingly incorporating AI tools for diagnosis assistance, therapy delivery, and patient monitoring, yet Missouri currently lacks specific statutory guidance on these applications. Clear regulations help protect vulnerable patients from misuse while enabling beneficial technological advances in a healthcare sector facing provider shortages. This legislation could serve as a model for other states establishing AI oversight in healthcare.

Potential points of contention

Clinical liability and responsibility: Unclear who bears legal responsibility when AI-assisted diagnoses or recommendations cause patient harm—the AI developer, healthcare provider, or facility

Patient consent and transparency: Determining what level of disclosure patients must receive about AI involvement in their care, and whether explicit opt-in/opt-out rights are required

Data privacy and algorithmic bias: Concerns about how patient mental health data is protected, whether algorithms are tested for bias against specific populations, and compliance with HIPAA standards