various state

California lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to approve bills they passed that aim to make artificial intelligence chatbots safer. But as the governor weighs whether to sign the legislation into law, he faces a familiar hurdle: objections from tech companies that say new restrictions would hinder innovation.

Californian companies are world leaders in AI and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stay ahead in the race to create the most powerful chatbots. The rapid pace has alarmed parents and lawmakers worried that chatbots are harming the mental health of children by exposing them to self-harm content and other risks.

Parents who allege chatbots encouraged their teens to harm themselves before they died by suicide have sued tech companies such as OpenAI, Character Technologies and Google. They’ve also pushed for more guardrails.

Calls for more AI regulation have reverberated throughout the nation’s capital and various states. Even as the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” proposes to cut red tape to encourage AI development, lawmakers and regulators from both parties are tackling child safety concerns surrounding chatbots that answer questions or act as digital companions.

California lawmakers this month passed two AI chatbot safety bills that the tech industry lobbied against. Newsom has until mid-October to approve or reject them.

The high-stakes decision puts the governor in a tricky spot. Politicians and tech companies alike want to assure the public they’re protecting young people. At the same time, tech companies are trying to expand the use of chatbots in classrooms and have opposed new restrictions they say go too far.

Meanwhile, if Newsom runs for president in 2028, he might need more financial support from wealthy tech entrepreneurs. On Sept. 22, Newsom promoted the state’s partnerships with tech companies on AI efforts and touted how the tech industry has fueled California’s economy, calling the state the “epicenter of American innovation.”

He has vetoed AI safety legislation in the past, including a bill last year that divided Silicon Valley’s tech industry because the governor thought it gave the public a “false sense of security.” But he also signaled that he’s trying to strike a balance between addressing safety concerns and ensuring California tech companies continue to dominate in AI.

“We have a sense of responsibility and accountability to lead, so we support risk-taking, but not recklessness,” Newsom said at a discussion with former President Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative event on Wednesday.

Two bills sent to the governor — Assembly Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 243 — aim to make AI chatbots safer but face stiff opposition from the tech industry. It’s unclear if the governor will sign both bills. His office declined to comment.

AB 1064 bars a person, business and other entity from making companion chatbots available to a California resident under the age of 18 unless the chatbot isn’t “foreseeably capable” of harmful conduct such as encouraging a child to engage in self-harm, violence or disordered eating.

SB 243 requires operators of companion chatbots to notify certain users that the virtual assistants aren’t human.

Under the bill, chatbot operators would have to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content and put in guardrails, such as referring users to a suicide hotline or crisis text line.

They would be required to notify minor users at least every three hours to take a break, and that the chatbot is not human. Operators would also be required to implement “reasonable measures” to prevent companion chatbots from generating sexually explicit content.

Tech lobbying group TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Meta, Google and others, said in a statement that it “agrees with the intent of the bills” but remains opposed to them.

AB 1064 “imposes vague and unworkable restrictions that create sweeping legal risks, while cutting students off from valuable AI learning tools,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, in a statement. “SB 243 establishes clearer rules without blocking access, but we continue to have concerns with its approach.”

A spokesperson for Meta said the company has “concerns about the unintended consequences that measures like AB 1064 would have.” The tech company launched a new Super PAC to combat state AI regulation that the company thinks is too burdensome, and is pushing for more parental control over how kids use AI, Axios reported on Tuesday.

Opponents led by the Computer & Communications Industry Assn. lobbied aggressively against AB 1064, stating it would threaten innovation and disadvantage California companies that would face more lawsuits and have to decide if they wanted to continue operating in the state.

Advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that sponsored AB 1064 and recommends that minors shouldn’t use AI companions, are urging Newsom to sign the bill into law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also supports the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said SB 243 is too broad and would run into free-speech issues.

Several groups, including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California, removed their support for SB 243 after changes were made to the bill, which they said weakened protections. Some of the changes limited who receives certain notifications and included exemptions for certain chatbots in video games and virtual assistants used in smart speakers.

Lawmakers who introduced chatbot safety legislation want the governor to sign both bills, arguing that they can both “work in harmony.”

Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced SB 243, said that even with the changes he still thinks the new rules will make AI safer.

“We’ve got a technology that has great potential for good, is incredibly powerful, but is evolving incredibly rapidly, and we can’t miss a window to provide commonsense guardrails here to protect folks,” he said. “I’m happy with where the bill is at.”

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said her bill balances the benefits of AI while safeguarding against the dangers.

“We want to make sure that when kids are engaging with any chatbot that it is not creating an unhealthy emotional attachment, guiding them towards suicide, disordered eating, any of the things that we know are harmful for children,” she said.

During the legislative session, lawmakers heard from grieving parents who lost their children. AB 1064 highlights two high-profile lawsuits: one against San Francisco ChatGPT maker OpenAI and another against Character Technologies, the developer of chatbot platform Character.AI.

Character.AI is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. Last year, Florida mom Megan Garcia alleged in a federal lawsuit that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed the mental health of her son Sewell Setzer III and accused the company of failing to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to virtual characters.

More families sued the company this year. A Character.AI spokesperson said they care very deeply about user safety and “encourage lawmakers to appropriately craft laws that promote user safety while also allowing sufficient space for innovation and free expression.”

In August, the California parents of Adam Raine sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT provided the teen information about suicide methods, including the one the teen used to kill himself.

OpenAI said it’s strengthening safeguards and plans to release parental controls. Its chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote in a September blog post that the company believes minors need “significant protections” and the company prioritizes “safety ahead of privacy and freedom for teens.” The company declined to comment on the California AI chatbot bills.

To California lawmakers, the clock is ticking.

“We’re doing our best,” Bauer-Kahan said. “The fact that we’ve already seen kids lose their lives to AI tells me we’re not moving fast enough.”

It’s been a chaotic week in Hollywood.

Less than a week ago, President Trump called for 100% tariffs on movies made outside the U.S., a move meant to bring productions home that most people in the industry believe would have devastating consequences for the entertainment business.

Then industry trade publication Deadline published the “Make Hollywood Great” proposal from actor Jon Voight, one of Trump’s so-called Hollywood ambassadors, that he recently presented to the president.

It has all led to confusion and disagreement from those in the industry about how to make the most of the current spotlight on a crucial issue — maintaining production and jobs in the U.S. — but in a way that will actually benefit the entertainment business.

“Any financial help we can give to filmmakers is going to keep filmmakers at home,” said George Huang, professor of screenwriting at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “Ideally, legislators will try to be creative and try to support what I think is one of our most highly sought-after industries here in the United States.”

On Friday, the Motion Picture Assn. trade group convened a meeting with movie studio chiefs to discuss how to respond to the Trump administration’s plan and how to advocate for measures they think would actually help boost domestic filming.

As other Hollywood unions and organization put out statements about the federal issues, the MPA was conspicuously silent publicly.

Representatives from the MPA and the studios declined to comment Friday.

The MPA — the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying organization for the major studios — has historically faced a difficult task getting its members to agree to anything, and that has only increased since the group expanded to include streaming services Netflix and Amazon, according to people familiar with the organization. The companies all have different priorities and, in some cases, completely different business models.

Some studio executives are hoping Voight’s list of ideas to rebuild Hollywood becomes a rough blueprint for a more realistic alternative to tariffs.

Studio chiefs say it’s often too expensive to make movies and TV shows in the U.S., even with the generous incentives offered by various states. Movies are a low-margin business, and shooting abroad can offset production costs by as much as 30%.

On Wednesday, studio executives from Sony, HBO and Amazon discussed the issue at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills. They highlighted the limits of incentives — even if the U.S. offered tax credits, sometimes projects have to be shot overseas because of the story.

“We’re going overseas because we have a show set in London,” said “The Diplomat” creator Debora Cahn. “We want castles and palaces, and we don’t have enough of them here.”

What’s clear is that most of Hollywood — as well as current and former civic leaders — do not favor the use of tariffs to bring production back to the U.S.

“It’s going to kill us,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told The Times. “That’s not going to help us. It’s going to hurt us.”

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), too, was skeptical of Trump’s tariff announcement.

“This is the absolute worst way to go about supporting an industry so critical to not just L.A. and the state but the country,” she said. “Filmed entertainment is one of the best products we are able to produce.”

It’s why Voight’s plan is being looked at with interest.

The centerpiece is a “new federal American Production incentive,” which would allow a 20% tax credit — or an added 10% on top of a state’s film incentive.

Projects that qualify would have to meet a minimum threshold American “cultural test,” similar to what Britain requires for film incentives. The incentive would apply to traditional broadcasters and streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and digital platforms, including YouTube and Facebook.

The plan also calls for Section 181 of the federal tax code to be renewed for another five years. It recommends raising the caps on film production to $20 million (or $40 million if the project was shot in a rural area). The proposal recognizes film budgets have increased since 2004.

The group also suggested extending Section 181 to cover movie theater owners for facility improvements and equipment updates to their movie houses.

“Families going to the movies is one of the great American past times that must be preserved,” the draft plan noted.

The plan did raise the specter of tariffs, saying that if a U.S.-based production “could have been produced in the U.S.” but moved to a foreign country to take advantage of a tax incentive, then “a tariff will be placed on that production equal to 120% of the value of the foreign incentive received.”

“This is not meant as a penalty, but a necessary step to ‘level the playing field,’ while not creating a never-ending cycle of chasing the highest incentive,” according to the draft.

After publication, Voight’s manager, Steven Paul, one of the authors, said the document was “crafted solely for the purpose of discussion.”

A group of Hollywood unions and industry trade groups — including the Motion Picture Assn. and guilds representing screenwriters, directors and actors, as well as the Producers United coalition — recently backed the idea of a domestic production incentive.

“We are really advocating right now to make sure that, yes, we bring back American jobs, but we do it in a way that is actually going to provide the lifeblood into this system that will actually sustain it,” said Jonathan Wang, a producer on the Oscar-winning film “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and a member of Producers United. “So we are asking that we are in the room when these decisions are being made, and that we can provide our voice.”

For Producers United, a federal tax incentive would make the U.S. more competitive with other countries, though the group does not support the “cultural test” suggested in Voight’s plan, which they worry could essentially become a form of censorship.

“It’s important that we work hard to not get put into a position where we finally are tempted with the carrot of an incentive and then faced with censorship,” said Cathy Schulman, a producer on the best picture Oscar winner “Crash” and the Amazon Anne Hathaway drama “The Idea of You,” who is part of the Producers United group. “It’s really important that the two conversations go hand-in-hand that we need this financial support for uncensored art.”

Times staff writers Wendy Lee, Meg James, Ryan Faughnder and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.