The CHAT Act 2.0 (S.5154) — protections for minors using companion AI chatbots, with the line drawn at whether it remembers and how narrow its purpose is
A bill establishing protections for minors who use companion AI chatbots. The scope covers software-based AI existing primarily for educational purposes or primarily to simulate interpersonal or emotional interaction, friendship, companionship or therapeutic communication across multiple interactions, and excludes systems without a memory function and those built for a narrow specified task.
Bill overview (primary data)
- Bill numberS. 5154
- TypeSenate Bill
- Congress119th Congress
- Latest actionRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.（2026-07-28）
Key points
- A bill establishing protections for minors who use companion AI chatbots; the short title is the Children Harmed by AI Technology Act 2.0.
- Scope covers AI existing primarily for educational purposes or primarily to simulate interpersonal or emotional interaction, friendship, companionship or therapeutic communication across multiple interactions.
- Systems without a memory function, unable to build on prior exchanges, are excluded. The pivot is whether it remembers.
- Also excluded are chatbots for narrow specified tasks such as customer service, business operation, standalone voice assistants and in-game chatbots.
- Of the 114 bills this site holds as of 2026-08-31, the 45 with a recorded introduction date show a median of zero days to latest action, with 71 percent last moving by the day after introduction.
- A memory function draws the line: systems continuing a conversation are covered, narrow-purpose ones fall outside.
1The line is whether it remembers
The pivot of the definition is the memory function. Whether a system can carry a conversation forward using what a user said before decides whether it falls in scope. A virtual assistant returning prepared responses is out; something whose exchanges accumulate into a continuing relationship is in. The reading behind this is that emotional attachment arises from the property of being remembered.
Narrowness of purpose sits alongside as an exclusion, so anything whose range of conversation is fixed in advance, like customer service or in-game dialogue, falls outside.
2Educational purposes sit in the same bracket
Easy to miss is that the first limb of the scope is primarily educational purposes, including tutoring. Something behaving like a friend and something teaching a subject sit inside the same definition. Both are used repeatedly by minors and both accumulate a relationship.
Learning support is usually discussed in positive terms, but within this framework the criteria are that the user is a minor and that the relationship continues.
3What the name 2.0 signals
The 2.0 in the short title marks this as a second bill on the same problem. Of the 114 US AI-related bills this site holds as of 2026-08-31, 45 carry a recorded introduction date; across those, the median number of days from introduction to latest action is zero, and 32 of them — 71 percent — have as their last movement something that happened by the day after introduction.
For most bills the latest action is the referral to committee on the day of introduction, and nothing since. Second and third bills on the same question appear not because earlier ones were voted down but, in most cases, because a Congress ends without them being taken up.
4Whether it remembers is what divides them
The core of the definition is whether there is a memory function. Whether the system can continue a conversation informed by what the user said before decides whether it is covered.
| Covered | Falling outside the definition |
|---|---|
| Can continue a conversation informed by what was said before | A virtual assistant returning only prepared responses |
| Relationship continues across repeated exchanges | Each exchange completes on its own |
| Includes systems primarily for education, including tutoring | Narrow uses such as customer service or in-game dialogue |
The reading behind it is that emotional attachment arises from the quality of being remembered. Easy to miss is that the first item covered is systems primarily for educational purposes. Something behaving like a friend and something teaching lessons sit inside one definition, with the counterpart being a minor and the relationship continuing as the criteria that matter.
Why it matters
For anyone offering conversational AI to minors, exposure turns not on whether the purpose is good but on whether the system remembers and whether a relationship continues. The drafting brings learning support within scope, so an assumption that educational use falls outside cannot be made. That the exclusions are itemized concretely gives a handle for judging at design time which side a product sits on.
FAQ
What is a companion AI chatbot?
Why draw the line at memory?
Are educational AIs covered?
Sources (primary)
Source: Congress.gov (Library of Congress; U.S. legislative materials, public domain). Links go to the official site.
- Congress.gov (bill page, original)
- S. 5154（119th Congress）