California Bill Seeks to Ban AI Chatbots Marketed as Therapy
Senate Bill 903 would prohibit unlicensed AI from making therapeutic decisions without professional oversight.
California State Senator Steve Padilla has introduced Senate Bill 903 to establish strict regulations on the use of artificial intelligence in mental health care. The legislation aims to prevent companies from marketing chatbots as therapy tools and ensures that AI cannot make clinical decisions without the review of a licensed professional.
Under the proposed law, the advertising of AI chatbots as therapy would be banned, and the use of these tools for therapeutic decision-making would be restricted unless overseen by a professional. Additionally, the bill requires healthcare providers to obtain explicit patient permission before utilizing AI for triaging care or recording sessions. The move has gained support from the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) as well as professional associations for counselors, therapists, and psychologists.
The Rise of Automated Care
The push for regulation follows a surge in users turning to AI for companionship and mental health support, often driven by the high cost of professional care and widespread loneliness. The risks associated with this trend are stark; OpenAI has reported that approximately 1.2 million users per week share thoughts of suicide on its platform. California is also seeing a rise in legal challenges, with several wrongful death lawsuits filed in federal courts alleging that AI chatbots contributed to user suicides. Furthermore, the NUHW has filed a complaint against Kaiser Permanente regarding the use of automated tools for mental health triaging.
The Battle Over Access
This legislation represents a critical effort to draw a legal line between AI-assisted administrative support and the actual practice of psychotherapy. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to protect vulnerable patients from unlicensed "pocket therapists" who lack clinical training. Le Ondra Clark Harvey, CEO of the California Behavioral Health Association, emphasized the stakes, stating, "The difference between a licensed clinician and an automated response is not technical. It can be life altering."
However, the bill faces opposition from industry groups like TechNet. Critics argue that requiring professional oversight for every AI-driven interaction creates a "clinician bottleneck" that could stifle innovation. Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California, warned that SB 903 could hinder the effectiveness of intake and screening tools designed to help patients reach care faster, particularly in regions suffering from severe behavioral healthcare worker shortages.
A Growing National Trend
California is not the first to tackle this issue. Illinois previously became the first state to pass a law—House Bill 1806—prohibiting the use of AI in therapy services. As other states watch the progress of SB 903, the central conflict remains whether AI should be viewed as a tool to expand access to care or a dangerous substitute for human expertise in crisis intervention.