Senator Josh Hawley is stirring the pot again, this time with a draft law floating around Capitol Hill that could shake up how Americans talk to machines.
The proposal, called the Guidelines for User Verification and Responsible Dialogue — the GUARD Act — aims to ban AI companion chatbots for minors and require all conversational systems to openly admit they’re not human.
The story first broke when word spread that Hawley’s office was quietly circulating the document, raising both eyebrows and alarms across Washington.
You can almost hear the sighs from Silicon Valley as companies brace for what could become a major regulatory pivot — all described in detail in this exclusive report.
The core of the bill is simple, but its implications are anything but.
Platforms offering AI companionship would need strict age verification systems, making sure that under-18 users can’t engage with emotionally manipulative or suggestive bots.
There’s also a clause demanding that chatbots clearly identify themselves as AI — not once, but continuously throughout interactions.
Hawley’s reasoning, according to people familiar with the proposal, comes after multiple hearings where parents described devastating cases involving kids and “empathetic” chatbots gone wrong.
The bill paints itself as a line in the sand, though some critics say it feels more like a wall.
Meanwhile, halfway across the country, California just made a move that echoes the same sentiment.
The state now requires digital assistants and chatbots to tell users upfront that they’re artificial — a move that’s making waves far beyond tech circles.
The new rule, laid out in California’s recent legislation, doesn’t ban chatbots for minors but demands absolute transparency.
It’s a big step, and honestly, a pretty clever one. Instead of saying “no,” it says “know” — let the user see what they’re dealing with.
Not every bill has had such a smooth ride, though. Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a tougher proposal that would’ve outright restricted minors’ access to AI chatbots, arguing it was “overly broad” and could unintentionally cut off educational or therapeutic tools.
It’s a delicate dance, as shown in his decision to strike down the controversial measure.
Still, Newsom signed several other AI-related bills into law, including those targeting deepfake pornography and fake news videos — moves that reveal how states are trying to find balance before Congress does.
Across the Atlantic, the European Union is moving in the opposite direction — not just regulating AI, but investing in it.
The EU recently unveiled a €1 billion plan to ramp up AI development across key sectors like health and energy, part of a broader effort to reduce reliance on foreign tech.
The announcement of the Apply AI Initiative, detailed in Europe’s new digital sovereignty push, shows that policymakers there are betting on both control and growth at once.
It’s a very different tone than Hawley’s hardline stance — maybe more carrot, less stick.
The irony is that all these efforts come while the International Monetary Fund warns that most countries still don’t have the right ethical or regulatory frameworks to handle the technology’s impact.
In a recent IMF address, managing director Kristalina Georgieva put it bluntly: we’re building AI faster than we’re building the guardrails.
That hits hard. It’s not just a U.S. issue — it’s a global one.
Personally, I get it. Lawmakers are scrambling to protect kids before things spiral, but I can’t shake the feeling that fear is driving the steering wheel here.
Blanket bans have a way of punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few. Wouldn’t it be smarter to enforce design ethics, transparency audits, and user education instead?
We could make chatbots safer without tossing them out the window. Still, there’s something to be said for politicians actually paying attention before the damage is irreversible — that alone feels new.
If this bill gains traction, it’ll ignite the first real national debate on emotional AI.
Maybe that’s what we need: not another moral panic, but a messy, human conversation about what role machines should really play in our lives.
