WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 1991

Persons prohibited from allowing minors to access chatbots for recreational purposes, and civil penalties provided.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mary Clardy and 2 co-sponsors

The bill prohibits allowing minors to access chatbots for recreational use and imposes civil penalties on violators.

Author added Smith
#childrenandminors #commercedepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 1991

Summary of HF 1991 (Session 2025-2026) – Minnesota

Purpose and intent

HF 1991 seeks to restrict access to chatbots for minors by prohibiting individuals from allowing minors to access chatbots for recreational purposes. The bill also establishes civil penalties for violations. The overarching aim appears to be protecting minors from engaging with chatbot services in non-educational, non-essential contexts, and to create enforceable consequences for non-compliant adults or entities.

Key provisions and changes

  • Prohibition on enabling minor access for recreation: The bill prohibits a person from allowing a minor to access chatbots for recreational use. This sets a boundary around when and how minors may interact with chatbot technology.

  • Civil penalties: Violations of the prohibition would subject the offender to civil penalties. The bill specifies that penalties are civil in nature, rather than criminal, but the exact amounts, tiers, or enforcement mechanisms would be defined in the statute (not provided in the summary text).

  • Scope of “chatbots”: The bill covers chatbot systems accessible to the public or to individuals, defined broadly as automated conversational agents or AI-driven chat services. The precise definitions (e.g., what constitutes a chatbot, whether via apps, websites, or messaging platforms) would be included in the bill’s text.

  • Jurisdiction: Minnesota state law, applying within the state to individuals or entities under Minnesota authority.

Who/what would be affected

  • Potentially affected parties:

    • Parents, guardians, and other adults who have the responsibility to supervise minors.
    • Businesses, organizations, or platforms that provide chatbot services accessible to minors or that interact with minors via chatbots.
    • Educational institutions or programs that deploy chatbots in a quasi-educational setting, depending on how “recreational purposes” is interpreted in context.

  • Minors: The protected group targeted by the bill, intended to constrain recreational chatbot use without parental or guardian authorization.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction/First reading: The bill was introduced and referred to the Commerce Finance and Policy committee as of March 6, 2025.

  • Sponsor information:

    • Primary sponsor: (not listed in the provided text)
    • Co-sponsors: Mary Clardy and Kristi Pursell (added as of March 24, 2025). Clardy is noted as an author in the action history.

  • Next steps in legislative process: After committee referral, HF 1991 would move through committee hearings, potential amendments, and floor votes in one or both chambers, followed by passage, reconciliation (if needed), and final approval before being transmitted to the governor for signature or veto. The exact timetable would depend on committee activity and legislative calendars.

Practical considerations and potential impact

  • Enforcement: Civil penalties imply administrative or civil action processes, potentially including fines or remedies. The bill would specify procedures, proof standards, and defense provisions in its full text.

  • Technology and accessibility: As chatbot technologies evolve rapidly, the bill’s definitions and scope will influence how platforms design age-restriction controls, parental consent mechanisms, and enforcement interfaces.

  • Ambiguities to watch:

    • How “recreational purposes” is defined (vs. educational or therapeutic use).
    • The exact age cutoffs for “minors.”
    • Exemptions (if any) such as research, education, or parental consent scenarios.
    • How civil penalties are calculated and collected, and whether there are safe harbors for compliant entities.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to align with specific sections of the bill once the full text is available, or provide a comparison to existing Minnesota age-restriction or consumer-protection statutes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.