Adopt the Saving Human Connection Act

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

A new consumer-protection law that regulates AI chatbots which act human-like, aimed especially at keeping them away from children.

• Section 3 duties begin January 1, 2028, for platforms operating or distributing generative AI systems.
• Chatbots may not make human-like features available to minors; platforms must verify age.
• Default service must omit human-like features; verified adults must request them explicitly, with warnings.
• Requires disclosures every thirty minutes and at each primary log-on that the system is not human.
• Section 4 gives the Attorney General injunctions, disgorgement, and up to $10,000 per violation.
• Users may sue for $100 to $10,000 per user per incident, or actual damages.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title fits: nearly every operative duty targets AI that simulates human companionship. The reach is broader than the name suggests.

• Matches: Section 2(8) defines human-like features as claimed sentience, emotional bonding, or impersonating a real person.
• Matches: Section 3(2)(f) requires systems to detect and prevent user emotional dependence on chatbots.
• Matches: Section 3(2)(e) requires response to emergency situations where a user indicates intent to harm.
• Diverges: covered platform means any platform distributing generative AI, not only companion chatbots.
• Diverges: subsections (h) through (j) impose data-minimization and third-party-access duties resembling general privacy law.
• Diverges: titled consumer protection, but creates no agency, program, or appropriation.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

This bill legislates against a substitute for company, and Scripture names the need the substitute is sold to fill: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18). The remedy given there is another person, not a simulation of one, which is the intuition behind Section 3(2)(f) — a platform must work to prevent, not cultivate, a user's emotional dependence on something that only appears to answer. The bill's other instinct is disclosure rather than prohibition, and on that Paul's request bears: "That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak." (Colossians 4:4) — a machine that must say every thirty minutes that it is not human is being made to speak manifestly about what it is. What the verses do not settle is nearly all of the legislative question: they do not fix eighteen as the line, do not say whether the state may require identity or age verification to draw it, do not weigh a hundred-dollar floor against a ten-thousand-dollar ceiling, do not say whether a simulated companion helps or harms a lonely person on balance, and do not tell a court what "reasonably effective" means.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The fight is over whether default-off human-like AI protects users or sweeps in ordinary AI products.

• For: Minors cannot be sold simulated emotional attachment; the ban is automatic, not parent-policed.
• For: Platforms must put safety over engagement when a user signals intent to harm someone.
• For: The $100 damages floor makes individually small harms worth bringing to court.
• Against: Covered platform reaches any generative AI distributor, far beyond companion chatbot apps.
• Against: Mandatory age verification imposes privacy and access costs on every adult user.
• Against: Barring arbitration while allowing class actions invites litigation over undefined best interests.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only the bill text as introduced; several practical questions are left open.

• No appropriation or fiscal figure appears; Attorney General enforcement costs are unstated.
• Reasonable age verification and reasonably effective systems are used but never defined.
• No agency receives rulemaking power; the text names only the Attorney General as enforcer.
• Section 2(2) defines best interests in terms of entrusted data, labor, or attention, leaving the standard vague.
• The text does not say whether each violation counts per user, per day, or per feature.
• Whether out-of-state platforms serving Nebraskans are covered is not addressed.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (9)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Dave Murman [District 38] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB939.