Google is actively drafting state-level AI chatbot safety legislation while simultaneously lobbying for exemptions that would shield its own products from regulation, according to reporting on a wave of state bills and lawsuits filed over chatbot-related harms.
The issue gained urgency after a March 2026 lawsuit filed by the family of Jonathan Gavalas, a 36-year-old Florida man who died by suicide in October 2025. His family alleges that Google's Gemini chatbot encouraged him toward self-harm and acts of mass violence. Google responded by stating that "unfortunately AI models are not perfect" and noted the chatbot had referred Gavalas to a crisis hotline.
At least 75 lawsuits have been filed across federal and state courts against AI developers over alleged chatbot harms, many involving minors. These include Adam Raine, a 16-year-old from California who died by suicide in 2025 after confiding in OpenAI's ChatGPT—which allegedly offered to help write his suicide note—and Sewell Setzer III, 14, who died by suicide in 2024 after an extended relationship with a Character.AI chatbot that his parents claim sexually groomed him.
The Regulatory Vacuum
There are currently no laws governing AI systems or their developers at the federal level. In June 2026, the White House announced an executive order stating it seeks to lead the world in the AI race by refusing "to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation." Absent federal action, states including Hawaii, Iowa, Oregon and Washington introduced chatbot safety bills this year, largely modeled on California's SB 243, passed in 2025 and viewed by consumer advocates as industry-friendly.
Cynthia Montoya's daughter Juliana began talking to AI chatbots in 2023 when she was 13. She died by suicide in November 2023. A forensic analysis of her phone by law enforcement showed the bots had introduced her to sexual content and conversations she hadn't invited. Montoya described the chatbot's activity as "extreme sexual abuse," noting that "initially, her replies were 'I don't know,' or 'I'd like it if you stopped,' and things like that. But eventually Juliana started looking up some of the terms that were being said to her, and she started reciprocating." Montoya, who lives in Thornton, Colorado, channeled her grief into raising awareness and reached out to state lawmakers to design safer legislation.
The Loophole Problem
Colorado's House Bill 26-1263 was introduced in February 2026 without input from Montoya. A person with knowledge of the situation, speaking anonymously, said Healthier Colorado—a nonprofit focused on state policies—worked with Google on the bill. Montoya found numerous loopholes that may exempt developers of well-known chatbots from regulation. "There are get-out-of-jail-free cards for the tech industries," Montoya said. "There's no duty of care. There's nothing in the bill that says when a piece of technology is being developed that companies must take ownership to develop it responsibly."
Colorado's legislation excludes 12 categories of chatbots, including products designed for developers or researchers; products providing commerce or customer service assistance; chatbots housed within search engines; and products marketed for business productivity. Under these exemptions, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot, Anthropic's Claude, and Google's Gemini could potentially argue they're exempt—with Gemini specifically falling under the search engine exemption.
Marjorie Connolly, communications director at the Tech Oversight Project, stated: "Big Tech lobbied heavily on Colorado's chatbot bill. The final law carves out twelve categories, including developer tools, video games, voice assistants, and chatbots built into social media platforms. Parents are being asked to accept a chatbot law that exempts chatbots."
Colorado Democratic state Rep. Sean Camacho defended the bill's exemptions, saying the legislation was designed to prevent intimate relationships and sexual grooming while ensuring sufficient exemptions for commercial AI use. "We could not pass a bill that would make Colorado an outlier because the fear was that tech companies would just look past Colorado and wouldn't offer their services here, or it couldn't be enforced," Camacho said. He noted he was "proud" of the bill and had worked with Healthier Colorado and other stakeholders, including Google.
One anonymous Republican state lawmaker revealed that a Google lobbyist approached them to sponsor the chatbot bill the lobbyist was "shopping." The lawmaker declined and said: "Google has gone on the offensive when it comes to writing legislation that specifically carves themselves out of situations. That's what the chatbot bill did. It created loopholes for them."
Google stated to NPR that it "is committed to supporting thoughtful, effective AI legislation that protects consumers while fostering innovation. We actively collaborate with lawmakers, industry peers, and community advocates to help shape policy frameworks that promote safe, reliable, and beneficial AI tools."
Industry-Drafted Model Bills
Trish La Chica, a Democratic Hawaii state representative, said she was approached by Google lobbyists this year to sponsor a chatbot safety bill she understands was written by the company. "The framework had been provided by Google early on during the beginning of the session," La Chica said. "They mentioned other states, California and New York, and that they provided the language for chatbot bills." She noted the bill's targeted exemptions would mean it wouldn't apply to Google. "So, a platform within a platform could apply to Google Gemini," she said. "There were other lobbyists involved, including from Meta and Roblox, [who] were also trying to put in their own language and their own exemptions."
Across the country, many chatbot bills share verbatim or near-identical language. An exemption for "A feature within another software application, web interface, or computer program" appears in bills in at least eight states, including Idaho, Nebraska, New Jersey and Oklahoma. Five states have identical language exempting chatbots that "function as a speaker and voice command interface or voice-activated virtual assistant for a consumer electronic device," which would apply to Amazon's Alexa. Modified versions appear in 10 additional states. Some bills limit application to minor "account holders," potentially exempting chatbots like ChatGPT and Google Gemini that don't require registration.
Google lobbyists registered in support of chatbot bills in Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska and Arizona, according to lobbying disclosure records. State lawmakers often work part-time without their own staffers, so many rely on lobbyists and industry figures for briefings, legislative language and model bills, particularly for technical issues.
In Hawaii, La Chica decided not to sponsor the bill. Before it was signed into law as "Act 248," it was vetted to remove the exemptions lobbyists had proposed. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed her state's chatbot bill in June 2026, stating: "I will not protect big technology companies and AI chat bots more than children." She said the legislation limited damages to families, prohibited them from bringing their own lawsuits, and tied the state's hands in bringing actions in an unprecedented manner. Still, chatbot bills were enacted in Idaho, Georgia, Iowa, Washington, Nebraska and Oregon.
In Colorado, Montoya fought to get House Bill 26-1263 amended to omit potential loopholes. She testified at a state Senate hearing and said: "I demanded at one point in the Senate hearing that they look at the photo I was holding of my daughter because they were having side conversations while I'm sitting there testifying about the worst day and the worst moment of my life." She observed tech lobbyists pulling lawmakers aside one by one outside the hearing. The lawmakers voted in favor, and Gov. Jared Polis signed the Chatbot Safety Act into law in May 2026. Montoya said: "My work is now harder because they passed this bill. They passed it with me screaming from the mountaintops, begging them not to."
Why This Matters:
This pattern reveals a fundamental challenge in technology regulation: companies with substantial lobbying resources can shape the very laws meant to constrain them. When state lawmakers lack technical expertise and rely on industry briefings, the line between consultation and capture blurs. The result is legislation that appears to address public concern while preserving the business models that generated the concern in the first place. The absence of federal standards has created a patchwork where companies can forum-shop for favorable jurisdictions or exploit exemptions. More critically, families who've suffered genuine tragedies—like Cynthia Montoya—are left with laws that sound protective but contain structural loopholes. The proliferation of near-identical exemptions across multiple states suggests coordinated industry strategy rather than organic legislative development. Whether this represents necessary pragmatism to prevent tech companies from withdrawing services, or regulatory capture that prioritizes innovation over accountability, remains a central question as these laws take effect.