S-3062-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 406.
Sponsored by Josh Hawley (R-MO)
What it does
The GUARD Act would require companies that make AI chatbots publicly available to verify users' ages using government-issued ID or equivalent methods, and to block minors from accessing "AI companions" — chatbots designed to simulate emotional relationships or persistent personas. It would also require all AI chatbots to disclose at the start of each conversation that they are not human and not licensed professionals. Separately, it would create new federal criminal penalties of up to $250,000 per offense for companies that knowingly or recklessly make AI chatbots available that expose minors to sexually explicit content or that solicit minors to commit self-harm or violence.
Who benefits
Minors who may be protected from AI-generated sexually explicit content, emotional manipulation, or solicitation of self-harm. Parents seeking greater oversight of their children's AI interactions. Mental health professionals and licensed therapists whose services may see increased demand as AI companions are restricted for minors. Domestic AI verification technology companies that would gain a new compliance market. States that want to enforce child protection laws, who gain an explicit federal floor and concurrent enforcement authority.
Who is hurt
AI chatbot companies (e.g., Character.AI, Replika, and similar platforms) that would face significant compliance costs for age verification infrastructure. Adult users whose privacy may be affected by mandatory ID submission to access AI services. Users without government-issued ID or credit cards — disproportionately low-income adults, immigrants, and the elderly — who may be effectively locked out of AI services. Minors who use AI companions for legitimate mental health support or social skill development and would lose access. Small AI developers with fewer resources to build compliant verification systems. Third-party age verification vendors affiliated with foreign nations (defined under 10 U.S.C. §4872) who are explicitly barred from the market.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that AI companion platforms have already been linked to documented harms to minors, including a widely reported 2024 case in which a teenager's suicide was allegedly preceded by extended interactions with a Character.AI chatbot. They contend that the bill's age verification requirement mirrors protections already applied to alcohol, tobacco, and adult websites, and that the disclosure mandates address a genuine deception risk — surveys show many users, especially children, are uncertain whether they are speaking to a human or a machine. Supporters further argue that the criminal penalties are narrowly targeted at knowing or reckless conduct, not good-faith errors, and that the data minimization requirements protect user privacy while achieving the child safety goal.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory age verification requiring government-issued ID creates a de facto national ID system for internet access, chilling First Amendment-protected speech for adults who value anonymity online — a concern the Supreme Court has recognized in cases involving access to legal content. They contend that the bill's definition of "AI companion" is broad enough to sweep in general-purpose chatbots, educational tools, and mental health apps that serve legitimate purposes for minors, and that blocking minors from AI-based emotional support tools could cause harm to isolated or at-risk youth who lack access to licensed professionals. Opponents also argue that the criminal "reckless disregard" standard is vague and could expose developers to liability for outputs they cannot fully predict, potentially chilling AI development broadly.
Constitutional context
The bill's age verification and content restriction provisions implicate the First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment — the Supreme Court has previously struck down internet content restriction laws that burdened adult speech as a means of protecting minors (Reno v. ACLU, 1997; Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004), though those cases involved direct content bans rather than access controls. The criminal prohibition on AI chatbots that expose minors to sexually explicit content builds on existing obscenity and child protection statutes (18 U.S.C. §2256, §1466A). The bill also raises Fourth Amendment questions under Carpenter v. United States (2018) regarding the collection and retention of identity data required for age verification.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Attorney General) gains new rulemaking and civil enforcement authority, with explicit statutory limits barring regulations beyond the bill's express scope; state attorneys general gain concurrent enforcement power; and federal courts provide judicial review of both enforcement actions and constitutional challenges.
Historical precedent
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, 1998) established federal data and consent requirements for online services directed at children under 13, and the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA, 2000) required filtering for minors in schools and libraries — both were upheld, though broader internet content restriction laws targeting minors were struck down in Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004).