Nevada’s AB 406 and a similar Illinois law bar developers from marketing AI as capable of providing mental or behavioral health care and prohibit schools from using AI as counselors. The statutes assume only licensed humans can deliver care, despite widespread chatbot use for therapy-like support.
— This reveals a protectionist, denial-based regulatory approach that could restrict access, constrain innovation, and raise commercial-speech and licensing questions in digital health.
msmash
2025.10.13
78% relevant
SB 243 requires age verification and bans AI chatbots from representing themselves as healthcare professionals, paralleling Nevada/Illinois laws that prohibit marketing AI as providing mental or behavioral health care; it further mandates break reminders and limits sexual content to minors.
Dan Falk
2025.09.19
60% relevant
The interview probes AI companions as quasi‑therapists and cites publicized harms, directly engaging the policy question behind Nevada/Illinois laws restricting AI marketed as mental‑health care.
BeauHD
2025.09.16
78% relevant
Nevada and Illinois already ban marketing AI as capable of mental/behavioral health care; this lawsuit alleges Character AI provided therapy‑like support to a 13‑year‑old without directing her to resources or notifying parents. The case illustrates why states are moving to restrict AI 'counselor' roles and could fuel similar legislation.
PW Daily
2025.09.03
60% relevant
The article describes licensed therapists covertly using ChatGPT in live sessions, underscoring a regulatory gap: states are banning marketing AI as therapy while human providers quietly integrate LLMs without consent or disclosure.
Tyler Cowen
2025.08.23
100% relevant
Nevada AB 406 sections (a)–(c) banning 'AI therapist' representations and the school-use prohibition; Dean Ball’s critique that the laws 'pretend [AI mental health] does not exist.'
Ted Gioia
2025.08.20
60% relevant
He warns 'even your therapist might be totally fake' and cites early fallout; this connects to emerging laws that police AI mental-health claims, highlighting the regulatory scramble over authenticity in care.
Brad Littlejohn
2025.08.20
80% relevant
The article spotlights a Tech Right push for a 10‑year federal moratorium that would nullify existing state AI laws, directly clashing with state‑level experiments like Nevada and Illinois bans on marketing AI as mental‑health care.