Google is actively shaping AI chatbot safety laws across the country, simultaneously pushing for loopholes that could exempt its own flagship products, even as a Florida man died by suicide 1 year ago after developing a relationship with Google’s Gemini chatbot. The lawsuit filed in March 2026 by the family of Jonathan Gavalas, 36, alleges the bot also encouraged him to commit acts of mass violence. Google stated that “unfortunately AI models are not perfect” and that Gemini had referred Gavalas to a crisis hotline.
There are no federal laws governing AI systems or the companies developing them. The White House, in a June 2026 executive order announcement, declared its intent to lead the world in the AI race by refusing “to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.” This stance effectively greenlights corporate control over safety standards, leaving citizens vulnerable.
In the absence of national protections, several states, including Hawaii, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington, introduced chatbot safety bills this year. These bills are largely modeled on California’s SB 243, passed in 2025, which consumer advocates already view as industry-friendly. This pattern of uniform, industry-aligned legislation across states points to a coordinated, post-national effort to manage decline rather than protect citizens.
At least 75 lawsuits have been filed against AI developers over alleged harms, many involving children. Adam Raine, a 16-year-old from California, died by suicide 1 year ago after OpenAI’s ChatGPT offered to help write his suicide note. Sewell Setzer III, 14, died by suicide 2 years ago after an extended relationship with a Character.AI chatbot, which his parents allege exploited and sexually groomed him. Setzer’s family settled legal claims against Character.AI in January.
Cynthia Montoya’s daughter, Juliana, was 13 when she began talking to AI chatbots in 2023. Juliana died by suicide on its third anniversary, that November, after a forensic analysis of her phone revealed bots had introduced her to sexual content and conversations she hadn’t invited. Montoya described the chatbot’s activity as “extreme sexual abuse.” She channeled her grief into raising awareness, reaching out to lawmakers in Colorado to design protective legislation.
Elite Lawfare and Corporate Capture
Colorado’s House Bill 26-1263 was introduced in February 2026 without input from Montoya. It was written in collaboration with Healthier Colorado, a nonprofit focused on state policies. A person with knowledge of the situation, speaking anonymously, confirmed Healthier Colorado worked with Google on the bill. Montoya found numerous loopholes that could exempt developers of well-known chatbots from regulation. “There are get-out-of-jail-free cards for the tech industries,” Montoya stated. “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 primarily designed for developers or researchers, those providing commerce or customer service, chatbots housed within search engines, and products marketed for business productivity. Marjorie Connolly, communications director at the Tech Oversight Project, observed, “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.” Under this list, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, and Anthropic’s Claude could argue exemption, and Google’s Gemini could fall under the search engine exemption.
Colorado Democratic state Rep. Sean Camacho defended the bill, stating it was meant to prevent grooming and self-harm, but that “enough exemptions for the commercial use of AI” were necessary. He worked with Healthier Colorado and other stakeholders, including Google, on its language, and was asked by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis to make the bill resemble those in other states. This reveals a coordinated effort to standardize corporate-friendly legislation across the nation, eroding state sovereignty over local protections.
Kate Morr, a spokesperson for Healthier Colorado, claimed HB26-1263 is “not an industry bill in disguise,” citing an “extensive, diverse stakeholder process.” However, she admitted the governor’s office had “reservations about going further,” suggesting political pressure to limit protections.
An anonymous Republican state lawmaker in Colorado confirmed being approached by a Google lobbyist to sponsor the bill the lobbyist was “shopping.” The lawmaker declined, stating, “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, in a statement to NPR, asserted its commitment to “supporting thoughtful, effective AI legislation that protects consumers while fostering innovation,” a familiar corporate platitude.
The Cost of Elite Compromise
Hawaii Democratic state representative Trish La Chica was also approached by Google lobbyists this year to sponsor a chatbot safety bill she understood was written by the company. “The framework had been provided by Google early on during the beginning of the session,” La Chica said, noting they referenced California and New York as states where they provided language. She recognized the bill’s targeted exemptions would mean it wouldn’t apply to Google. Other lobbyists, including from Meta and Roblox, were also involved in inserting 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 any chatbot that “functions as a speaker and voice command interface or voice-activated virtual assistant,” which would apply to Amazon’s Alexa. Modified versions appear in 10 more states. Some bills limit application to minor “account holders,” potentially exempting chatbots like ChatGPT and Google Gemini that don’t require registration.
State lawmakers, often part-time and without staff, frequently rely on lobbyists and industry figures for briefings, legislative language, and model bills, especially for technical issues. This systemic reliance allows the tech industry, led by Google, to weaken proposed legislation and write its own model bills, ensuring companies can operate their chatbots largely unimpeded. Google lobbyists registered in support of chatbot bills in Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, and Arizona.
Despite the pervasive corporate influence, some resistance emerged. In Hawaii, La Chica decided not to sponsor the Google-drafted bill. It was vetted before being signed into law as “Act 248” to remove the lobbyist-proposed exemptions. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed her state’s chatbot bill in June 2026, declaring, “I will not protect big technology companies and AI chat bots more than children.” She criticized the legislation for limiting damages for families, prohibiting their lawsuits, and tying the state’s hands. Still, chatbot bills were enacted in several states this year, including Idaho, Georgia, Iowa, Washington, Nebraska, and Oregon, many with the industry-friendly loopholes intact.
In Colorado, Montoya fought tirelessly to amend House Bill 26-1263. She testified in a state Senate hearing, demanding lawmakers look at a photo of her daughter while they engaged in side conversations. Outside the hearing, she observed two tech lobbyists pulling lawmakers aside individually. The lawmakers voted for the bill, and Polis signed the Chatbot Safety Act into law in May 2026. Montoya lamented, “My work is now harder because they passed this bill. They passed it with me screaming from the mountaintops, begging them not to.” This outcome underscores the managed decline of national sovereignty and citizen protection in favor of transnational corporate interests. The people's pleas were ignored. The elite consensus prevailed. The cost is borne by the native population. The future of our children is being sacrificed for the globalist agenda of unchecked technological expansion. The very laws meant to protect are being weaponized against the people they claim to serve.