NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to PA HB 2006, Artificial Intelligence in Companionship Applications Safety Act
Publish Date: 2026-06-23 08:03:00
Source Domain: netchoice.org
HB 2006 is a well-intentioned but deeply flawed bill that would impose vague, unworkable mandates on AI companion operators, force the collection of sensitive personal data from all users just to identify minors and expose companies to open-ended penalties of up to $100,000 per day for violations that aren’t even clearly defined. Rather than protecting Pennsylvanians, it creates legal uncertainty that will fall hardest on smaller developers while doing little to address the real harms motivating the legislation.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to PA HB 2006, Artificial Intelligence in Companionship Applications Safety Act
June 23, 2026
Pennsylvania Legislature
Dear Chair Ciresi and Members of the Committee on Communications and Technology:
NetChoice respectfully requests your opposition to HB 2006, which requires AI companion operators to verify user ages, restrict minor access and obtain verifiable parental consent, among other provisions. We share the General Assembly’s goal of protecting Pennsylvanians, and particularly minors, from the genuine harms that have been documented in connection with AI companion products. Lawmakers are right to be concerned. But HB 2006, as amended, is unlikely to achieve that goal, and risks doing more harm than good. Our concerns center on three areas: the bill’s vague and subjective definitions, the privacy risks created by the age-assurance and parental-consent mandate in Section 5(b) and the bill’s excessive and ill-defined civil penalties. We urge the committee to oppose this bill.
The Bill’s Definitions are Vague and Subjective
HB 2006 regulates any “AI companion,” defined in Section 2 as a system that “simulates sustained human-like relationships by retaining interaction history, engaging in emotion-based interactions and maintaining ongoing dialogues about personal matters designed to mimic interpersonal relationships.” “Human-like relationship” is in turn…
