Purpose: The purpose of this tracker is to identify key
federal and state health AI policy activity and summarize laws
relevant to the use of AI in health care. The below reflects
activity from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025. This is
published on a quarterly basis.
Activity on AI in health care has been a nationwide phenomenon
during the 2025 legislative session: as of June 30, 2025, 46 states
have introduced over 250 AI bills impacting health care and 17
states passed 27 of those bills into law.
See map below.1
This year, so far, passed laws have primarily focused on three
key areas:
1. Use of AI-Enabled Chatbots: Actors across
the health care ecosystem are integrating AI chatbots to improve
efficiency, enhance patient engagement, and expand access to care.
Chatbot functionalities are being leveraged in administrative
functions (e.g., in support of patient scheduling) and in clinical
functions (e.g., early patient triage). States are taking action to
legislate these tools in response to concerns that AI chatbots may
misrepresent themselves as humans, produce harmful or inaccurate
responses, or not reliably detect crises.
Notably, five bills have been passed, and four signed into
law,2 related to AI-enabled chatbots this year. Of
those, two directly address the use of chatbots in the delivery of
mental health services:
Utah’s HB 452, effective as of 5/7/2025, requires
“mental health chatbots” to clearly and conspicuously
disclose to the user that the chatbot is AI technology (and not a
human) at the beginning of any interaction, before the user
accesses features of the chatbot, and any time the user asks or
otherwise prompts the chatbot about whether AI is being used. The
law prohibits the sale or sharing of individual user data from
mental health chatbots with any third party (with key clinical
exceptions3 ) or advertising a specific product or
service during the conversation unless the chatbot clearly and
conspicuously identifies the advertisement and discloses any
sponsorships, business affiliations, or agreements that the
supplier has with third parties to promote the product or service.
Separately, Utah’s Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy has
recently published best practices for use of AI by mental health
therapists.
New York’s enacted budget (SB
3008), effective beginning 11/5/2025, is more broadly
applicable to “AI companions.”4 The law
prohibits any person or entity to operate or provide an “AI
companion” to someone in New York unless the model contains a
protocol to take reasonable effort to detect and address suicidal
ideation or expressions of self-harm expressed by the user. That
protocol must, at a minimum: (1) detect user expressions of
suicidal ideation or self-harm, and (2) refer users to crisis
service providers (e.g., suicide prevention and behavioral health
crisis hotlines) or other appropriate crisis services, when
suicidal ideations or thoughts of self-harm are detected. AI
companion operators must provide a “clear and
conspicuous” notification—either verbally or in
writing—that the user is not communicating with a human; that
notification must occur at the beginning of any AI companion
interaction, and at least every three hours after for continuous
interactions.
Separately but related, Texas HB
149 (effective beginning 9/1/2026) is more broadly applicable
to “artificial intelligence systems”5 and
specifically prohibits any development or deployment of these
systems that would “incite or encourage” a person to
commit physical self-harm, cause harm others, or engage in criminal
activity. While the law is not specific to chatbots, these
provisions may impact AI chatbots deployed in the state. The law
includes several other broader provisions (see summary below).
Finally, Illinois HB
1806—which was sent to the Governor on June 24 (although
not yet signed)—prohibits the use of AI systems in therapy or
psychotherapy to make independent therapeutic decisions, directly
interact with clients in any form of therapeutic communication, or
generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without the
review and approval by a licensed professional. This law, if
signed, may substantially impair use of AI systems for mental
health services.
The other two laws that passed addressed concerns about
misrepresentation of chatbots as humans, as well as data use and
sharing: Maine HP 1154, effective as of 6/18/2025,
prohibits chatbots that mislead or deceive users into believing
they are interacting with a human, and Utah SB
226, effective as of 5/7/2025, requires “regulated
occupations”6 to disclose use of AI in messaging in
“high-risk artificial intelligence interactions.”
A dozen other chatbot bills were introduced but did not pass,
which were mainly general chatbot bills (not specific to health
care) focused on setting forth disclosure requirements. There were
three bills that did not pass that included provisions specific to
healthcare chatbots and/or had mental health specific
provisions.7 We anticipate further activity in this area
next legislative session.
2. Payor Use of AI: Payors are increasingly
adopting AI across operations—from utilization and quality
management to fraud detection and claims adjudication—with a
recent NAIC survey finding that 84% of health insurers use AI or
machine learning across their product lines.8 In
response, states are focusing on ways to mitigate potential harms
to beneficiaries from its use. Of the approximately 60 bills that
introduced governing payer use of AI, only four passed. These four
laws focus primarily on prohibiting the sole use of AI in making
medical necessity denials or denying prior authorization and either
requiring review by a physician of all AI decisions or prohibiting
payers from replacing physician/peer review of medical
appropriateness with an AI tool. For more detail, see below Arizona
(HB 2175), Maryland (HB
820), Nebraska (LB
77), and Texas (SB
815).
3. AI in Clinical Care: States are eager to
balance AI’s potential to support clinical care with the
potential risks posed to patients and providers. This year, states
have worked to establish guardrails on the use of AI in clinical
care, such as provider oversight requirements, transparency
mandates, and safeguards against bias and misuse of sensitive
health data. Of the over 20 bills regulating provider use of AI
introduced in 2025—which included language regarding the role
of AI in clinical delivery, what provider oversight should be
required when using AI tools in clinical decision-making, and how
providers should communicate AI use to patients—four bills
passed. Texas HB 149 mandates that providers leveraging
AI systems for health care services or treatments provide
disclosure to the patient (or their representative) no later than
the date that the service or treatment is first provided (with
exception for emergency situations, when disclosure must be
provided “as soon as reasonably possible”). Laws in
Nevada (AB 406) and Oregon (HB
2748) prohibit AI systems from representing themselves as
licensed providers; Nevada’s bill focused on an AI system
representing itself as mental or behavioral health care providers
and Oregon’s on nurses. Texas SB
1188 requires providers leveraging AI for diagnostic or other
purposes to review information before entering it into patient
records.
While most 2025 legislative sessions have now ended, six states (CA, MA, MI, OH, PA, and WI)
remain in session and are actively progressing legislation. We will
continue to track legislation in those states. See below
table for a full summary of key health AI laws passed in 2025
and here or a list of all AI laws
passed to-date.
In Q2, there was significant federal activity. While ultimately
not passed, a near final draft of H.R. 1 (“One Big Beautiful
Bill”) included language that would have barred state or local
governments from enforcing laws or regulations on AI models or
systems for up to ten years. More recently, the White House
released the “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action
Plan,” which includes a significant deregulatory and
geopolitical posture, and frames AI advancement as essential to
American vitality, national security, and scientific leadership.
The Plan, among other provisions, directs federal agencies to
identify and repeal rules that could hinder AI development.
Notably, the plan declares that the “Federal government should
not allow AI-related Federal funding to be directed towards states
with burdensome AI regulations” and that Federal agencies with
AI-related discretionary funding consider a state’s AI
regulatory climate when making funding decisions. Separately, the
plan calls on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
evaluate whether state AI laws interfere with its authorities to
regulate, among other things, communication and broadband-enabled
health technologies. To accelerate innovation, the plan proposes
the establishment of regulatory sandboxes or AI Centers of
Excellence across the country—supported by a variety of
federal agencies (FDA, SEC, DOC)—where developers can deploy
and test AI tools in real-world settings. In parallel, the
Department of Commerce (DOC), through NIST, would lead
domain-specific efforts (e.g., health care, energy, and
agriculture) to develop national AI standards and evaluate
productivity gains from AI in applied settings.
In addition, federal agencies have solicited comment on AI and
health care: In May 2025, the Office of National Coordinator (ONC)
and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) issued a request for information seeking public
feedback on digital tools, including AI, that can improve Medicare
beneficiary access, improve interoperability, and reduce
administrative burden. On June 27, CMS launched a new model titled the Wasteful and
Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model to partner with
technology companies to “improv[e] and expedit[e]” prior
authorization process compared to Original Medicare’s existing
processes and to reduce fraud for several services/products that
CMS deemed at high risk of fraud or abuse in selected states. CMS
also, in the CY 2026 Proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,
requested public comments on appropriate payment strategies for
software as a service and AI.
For a summary of substantive federal action to date, see the
table below.
Health AI Laws Passed in 2025:
The below table represents the health AI laws that passed in
2025. For a full list of all laws prior to and including
2025, please see here.
* Laws with an asterisk are those we consider “key state
laws.” These are laws that, based on our review, are of
greatest significance to the delivery and use of AI in health care
because they are broad in scope and directly touch on how health
care is delivered or paid or because they impose significant
requirements on those developing or deploying AI for health care
use.
State
Summary
Arizona*
HB 2175 requires that a health care provider
individually, exercising independent medical judgment, review
claims and prior authorization requests prior to an insurer denying
a claim or prior authorization. The law bans the sole use of any
other source to deny a claim or prior authorization.
Date Enacted: 5/12/2025
Date Effective: 6/30/2026
Maine*
HP 1154 prohibits the use of artificial
intelligence chatbots or similar technologies in trade and commerce
in a manner that may mislead or deceive consumers into believing
they are interacting with a human being, unless the consumer is
clearly and conspicuously notified that they are not engaging with
a human being.
Date Enacted: 6/12/2025
Date Effective: 6/18/2025
Maryland*
HB 820 requires carriers (including health
insurers, dental benefit plans, pharmacy benefit managers that
provide utilization review, and any health benefit plans subject to
regulation by the state) to ensure that any AI tools used for
utilization review base decisions on medical/clinical history,
individual circumstances, and clinical information; does not solely
leverage group datasets to make decisions; does not “replace
the role of a health care provider in the determination
process”; does not result in discrimination; is open for
inspection/audit; does not directly or indirectly cause harm; and
patient data is not used beyond its intended use. The law mandates
that AI tools may not “deny, delay or modify health care
services.”
Date Enacted: 5/20/2025
Date Effective: 10/1/2025
Montana
HB 178 prohibits the AI use by government
entities to “classify a person or group based on behavior,
socioeconomic status, or personal characteristics resulting in
unlawful discrimination.” Requires government entities provide
disclosures on any published material posted by AI not reviewed by
a human.
Date Enacted: 5/5/2025
Date Effective: 10/1/2025
Nebraska*
LB 77 establishes that AI algorithms may not be
the “sole basis” of a “utilization review
agent’s” (defined as any person or entity that performs
utilization review) decision to “deny, delay, or modify health
care services” based whole or in part on medical necessity.
The law requires utilization review agents to disclose use of AI in
utilization review process to each health care provider in its
network, to each enrollee, and on its public website.
Date Enacted: 6/4/2025
Date Effective: 1/1/2026
Nevada*
AB 406 prohibits AI “providers” from
“explicitly or implicitly” indicating that an AI system
is capable of providing or is providing professional mental or
behavioral health care. Prohibits providers of mental and
behavioral health care from using or providing AI systems in
connection to the direct provision of care to patients. Sets forth
that providers may use AI tools to support administrative tasks
provided that the provider must 1) ensure that use complies with
all applicable federal and state laws governing patient privacy and
security of EHRs, health-related information, and other data,
including HIPAA, and 2) review the accuracy of any report, data, or
information compiled, summarized, analyzed, or generated by AI
systems. The law requires the state agency to develop public
education material focusing on, amongst other topics, best
practices for AI use by individuals seeking mental or behavioral
health care or experiencing a mental or behavioral health event.
Additionally, the law prohibits all public schools (including
charter schools or university schools) from using AI to
“perform the functions and duties of a school counselor,
school psychologist, or school social worker” as related to
student mental health.
Date Enacted: 6/5/2025
Date Effective: Upon passage and approval for the purpose of
adopting any regulations and performing any other necessary
preparatory administrative tasks to carry out provisions of this
act. 7/1/2025 for all other purposes.
New Mexico
HB 178 establishes that the Board of Nursing
shall “promulgate rules establishing standards for the use of
artificial intelligence in nursing.”
Date Enacted: 4/8/2025
Date Effective: 6/20/2025
New York*
SB 3008 prohibits any person or entity to
operate or provide an “AI companion” to someone in New
York unless the model contains a protocol to take reasonable effort
to detect and address suicidal ideation or expressions of self-harm
expressed by the user. Requires protocols to, at a minimum: (1)
detect user expressions of suicidal ideation or self-harm, and (2)
refer users to crisis service providers (e.g., suicide prevention
and behavioral health crisis hotlines) or other appropriate crisis
services, when suicidal ideations or thoughts of self-harm are
detected. Requires that AI companion operators provide a
“clear and conspicuous” notification—either
verbally or in writing—that the user is not communicating
with a human; that notification must occur at the beginning of any
AI companion interaction, and at least every three hours after for
continuous interactions. Sets forth that the Attorney General has
oversight authority and can impose penalties of $15,000/day on an
operator that violates the law.
Date Enacted: 5/9/2025
Date Effective: 11/5/2025
Oregon*
HB 2748 mandates that “nonhuman”
entities, including AI tools, may not use the title of nurse or
similar titles, including advanced practice registered nurse,
certified registered nurse anesthetist, clinical nurse specialist,
nurse practitioner, medication aide, certified medication aide,
nursing aide, nursing assistant, or certified nursing
assistant.
Date Enacted: 6/24/2025
Date Effective: 1/1/2026
Texas*
HB 149 sets requirements for government agency
and non-governmental use of AI. Requirements for government
agencies include: mandating that government agencies using AI
systems that interact with consumers clearly and conspicuously
disclose to each consumer, before or at the time of interaction,
that the consumer is interacting with an AI system; prohibiting
government entities from using AI systems that produce social
scoring, or developing or deploying an AI system that uses
biometric identifiers to uniquely identify individuals if that use
infringes on constitutional rights; and establishing an AI
Regulatory Sandbox Program and creates the “Texas Artificial
Intelligence Council.”
Requirements for non-governmental developers and deployers of AI
include: prohibiting deployers from deploying AI systems that aim
to “incite or encourage” a user to commit self-harm, harm
another person, or engage in criminal activity and prohibiting
development or deployment of AI systems that discriminate.
An AI system deployed in relation to health care services or
treatments must be disclosed by the provider to the recipient of
health services or their personal representative on the date of
service, except in emergencies, when the provider shall disclose as
soon as reasonably possible.
Date Enacted: 6/22/2025
Date Effective: 1/1/2026
Texas*
SB 815 prohibits a utilization review
agent’s use of an automated decision system (defined as an
algorithm or AI that makes, recommends, or suggests certain
determinations) to “make, wholly or partly, an adverse
determination.” Adverse determinations are defined as
determinations that services are not medical necessary or
appropriate, or are experimental or investigational. Sets forth
that the use of algorithms, AI, or automated decision systems for
administrative support or fraud detection is allowable. Empowers
the Commissioner of Insurance to audit and inspect use of
tools.
Date Enacted: 6/20/2025
Date Effective: 9/1/2025
Texas*
SB 1188 requires providers leveraging AI for
diagnostic or other purposes to “review all information
created with artificial intelligence in a manner that is consistent
with medical records standards developed by the Texas Medical
Board.” In addition, a provider using AI for diagnostic
purposes must disclose the use of the technology to their
patients.
Date Enacted: 6/20/2025
Date Effective: 9/1/2025
Texas
HB 3512 requires the Department of Information
Resources to implement state-certified AI training programs
(similar to existing cybersecurity training protocols) for agency
staff and local governments.
Date Enacted: 6/20/2025
Date Effective: 9/1/2025
Utah*
SB 226 repealed Utah SB 149 disclosure
provisions and replaced them with disclosure requirements that are
similar, but required in more narrow scenarios. As with SB 149, the
law requires “regulated occupations” to prominently
disclose that they are using computer-driven responses before they
begin using generative AI for any oral or electronic messaging with
an end user. However, this disclosure is only required when the
generative AI is “high-risk,” which is defined as (a) the
collection of personal information, including health, financial, or
biometric data and (b) the provision of personalized
recommendations that could be relied upon to make significant
personal determinations, including medical, legal, financial, or
mental health advice or services.
Relatedly, in 2025, SB
332 passed, which extended the repeal date of SB 149 to July 1,
2027.
Date Enacted: 3/27/2025
Date Effective: 5/7/2025
Utah*
HB 452 requires suppliers of “mental
health chatbots”9 to clearly and conspicuously
disclose that the chatbot is AI technology and not a human at the
beginning of any interaction, before the user access features of
the chatbot and any time the user asks or otherwise prompts the
chatbot about whether AI is being used. Prohibits
“suppliers”10 of mental health chatbots
from:
Selling or sharing individually identifiable health information
or user input with any third party, except if that information is
(a) requested by a health care provider with a user’s consent;
(b) provided to a health plan of a Utah user upon a user’s
request; or (c) shared by the supplier to ensure the effective
functionality of the tool, provided that the supplier and the
recipient of such information comply with HIPAA regulations (as if
the supplier were a covered entity and the other entity were a
business associate).
Advertising a specific product or service during the
conversation unless the chatbot clearly and conspicuously
identifies the advertisement as an advertisement and clearly and
conspicuously discloses any sponsorships, business affiliations, or
agreements that the supplier has with third parties to promote the
product or service. The law also prohibits any targeted
advertisement based on the user’s input.
The law does not preclude chatbots from recommending that users
seek counseling, therapy, or other assistance, as necessary.
The Attorney General may impose penalties for violations of this
law.
Finally, the law states that it is an affirmative defense to
liability under the law if the supplier demonstrates that they
maintained documentation that describes development and
implementation of the AI model that complies with the law and
maintains a policy that meets a long list of requirements,
including ensuring that a licensed mental health therapist was
involved in the development and review process and has procedures
which prioritize user mental health and safety over engagement
metrics or profit. In order for the affirmative defense to be
available, the policy must be filed with the Division of Consumer
Protection.
Date Enacted: 3/25/2025
Date Effective: 5/7/2025
Other: State Activity Laws
Over the past several decades, states have sought to understand
AI technology before regulating it. For example, states have
created councils to study AI and/or created AI-policy positions
within government in charge of establishing AI governance and
policy. States have additionally tracked use of AI technology
within state agencies. These bills reflect states interest in the
potential role of AI across industries, and potentially in health
care specifically.
The following passed in 2025: Alabama HB
365, Kentucky SB 4, Maryland SB
705, Maryland HB 956, Mississippi SB
2426, Montana HJR 178, New York SB
822, Texas HB 149 (certain provisions), Texas SB
1964, Texas HB 3512, and West Virginia HB
3187.
Key Federal Activity
2025 Activity To-Date
White House
Trump Administration released the “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action
Plan,” which declared U.S. global dominance in AI a
national imperative and outlines a comprehensive roadmap based on
three key pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and international
diplomacy.
Trump Executive Order revoked Biden Administration’s AI
Executive Order (Jan ’25).
Policies on federal AI use and procurement
(April ’25).
Public comment on AI Action Plan (concluded mid-March
’25).
OMB issued a memo focused on government adoption of AI
services.
General de-regulatory approach and emphasis from administration
on using AI to identify instances of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Congress
Initial drafts of H.R. 1 included a ten-year moratorium on state
legislation of AI. After much debate, this provision was struck
from final law on July 4, 2025.
Bills to:
Establish the National AI Research Resource
initiative (Mar ’25).
Allow AI and machine learning to prescribe
medication (Jan ’25).
Allow Medicare payment pathway for AI-enabled
devices (April ’25).
Several others that touch on AI in health care, which we will
report on if they gain traction.
HHS Appointments and Announcements
In May 2025, U.S. Health & Human Services (HHS) designated
Peter Bowman-Davis acting Chief AI Officer at HHS.
In May 2025, Secretary Kennedy indicated that HHS is already leveraging AI in
standard operations, with attention to advancing novel
treatments.
The week before inauguration in January, HHS announced
they’d hired three executive positions: Chief AI Officer (Dr.
Meghan Dierks), Chief Data Officer (Kristen Honey), and Chief Technology Officer
(Alicia Rouault), all central to Biden’s AI
strategy roadmap. In mid-February, it was reported that all three
executives were on administrative leave. As of July 17, 2025, the
HHS Employee Directory indicates Kristen Honey and
Alicia Rouault remain HHS employees (Chief Data Officer and Digital
Services Expert, respectively). Dr. Meghan Dierks left HHS in May
2025.
OCR
Non-Discrimination rule is subject to ongoing litigation; the
first Trump Administration reversed a prior version of the
rule.
ONC
In May 2025, ONC and CMS issued a request for information seeking public
feedback on digital tools—including AI—that can improve
Medicare beneficiary access, improve interoperability, and reduce
administrative burden.
CMS
CY2026 Proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule requested
public comments on appropriate payment strategies for software as a
service and artificial intelligence.
On June 27, CMS launched a new model, the Wasteful and
Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model, to partner with
technology companies to use AI to “improv[e] and
expedit[e]” prior authorization process compared to Original
Medicare’s existing processes to reduce fraud for several
services/products.
In final rule for CY 2026, CMS chose not to
finalize provisions regarding Medicare Advantage use of AI but
acknowledged the “broad interest” in AI and “will
continue to consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to
engage in future rulemaking in this area.”
In May 2025, ONC and CMS issued a request for information seeking public
feedback on digital tool—including AI—that can improve
Medicare beneficiary access, improve interoperability, and reduce
administrative burden.
Under the Meaningful Measures 2.0 strategy, CMS is
prioritizing digital quality measures, including using AI to
identify and address quality issues.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the new administrator for CMS, has been reported
as promoting the use of artificial intelligence at CMS, in
particular to combat fraud, waste and abuse, and possibly
using AI avatars instead of frontline health care workers as a way
to reduce costs without compromising quality.
MACPAC presented study findings on the use of AI in prior
authorization processes in Medicaid (Feb ’25)
FDA
Draft guidance for developers of AI-enabled medical
devices.
In June 2025, launched “Elsa” to support departmental
efficiency
In May 2025, Jeremy Walsh was hired as FDA’s chief AI officer and head
of IT.
NIH
DOJ
Litigation continues over alleged use of AI to deny Medicare
Advantage claims. In June 2025, DOJ announced charges against over 300 defendants
for participation in health care fraud schemes, with a parallel
announcement from CMS on the successful prevention of $4 billion in
payments for false and fraudulent claims.
FTC
No significant activity. An FTC publication noted the department’s focus
on potential AI harms and also reinforced that existing laws apply
to AI technologies.
Footnotes
1 This map does not include bills we categorize as
“Other: State Activity Laws,” which generally are bills
that create councils or tasks forces to study AI or are related to
narrow state activities.
2 Illinois HB
1806 passed and was sent to the Governor on June 24 , but, as
of the time of publication has not yet been signed.
3 Exceptions include: if the data is (a) requested by a
health care provider with a user’s consent; (b) provided to a
health plan of a Utah user upon a user’s request; or (c) shared
by the supplier to ensure the effective functionality of the tool,
provided that the supplier and the recipient of such information
comply with HIPAA (even if not a covered entity or business
associate).
4 AI Companions defined as: “a system using
artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, and/or
emotional recognition algorithms designed to simulate a sustained
human or human-like relationship with a user by:
retaining information on prior interactions or user
sessions and user preferences to personalize the interaction and
facilitate ongoing engagement with the AI companion;
asking unprompted or unsolicited emotion-based questions
that go beyond a direct response to a user prompt; and
sustaining an ongoing dialogue concerning matters
personal to the user.”
AI Companions exclude “any system used by a business
entity solely for customer service or to strictly provide users
with information about available commercial services or products
provided by such entity, customer service account information, or
other information strictly related to its customer service; any
system that is primarily designed and marketed for providing
efficiency improvements or, research or technical assistance; or
any system used by a business entity solely for internal purposes
or employee productivity.”
5 “Artificial Intelligence Systems” are defined
as “any machine-based system that, for any explicit or
implicit objective, infers from the inputs the system receives how
to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or
recommendations, that can influence physical or virtual
environments.”
6 “Regulated occupations” are defined as
occupations regulated by the Department of Commerce that require an
individual to obtain a license or state certification to practice
the occupation. “High-risk artificial intelligence
interactions” are defined as interactions with generative
artificial intelligence that involve 1) the collection of sensitive
personal information (including health data, financial data, or
biometric data); 2) the provision of personalized recommendations,
advice, or information that could be reasonably relied upon to make
significant personal decisions (including medical advice or
services or mental health advice or services, among others), or 3)
other applications as defined by division rule.
7 California SB 243, New York AB
6767, and North Carolina SB
624 were all introduced in 2025 and contain provisions focused
on AI chatbots and mental health.
8 Health Survey Report – FINAL
5.9.25.pdf
10 “Supplier” means a seller, lessor, assignor,
offeror, broker, or other person who regularly solicits, engages
in, or enforces consumer transactions, whether or not the person
deals directly with the consumer. Utah Code 13-11-3
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.