California Proposes Four-Year Pause on AI Chatbot Toys

California Senator Steve Padilla has introduced legislation, SB 867, that would place a four-year ban on the manufacture and sale of toys equipped with AI chatbot capabilities for anyone under 18. The stated intent is to buy time for safety regulators and lawmakers to develop robust rules that protect children from potentially harmful or manipulative interactions with autonomous conversational systems embedded in toys.

What is SB 867 and why now?

SB 867 would temporarily prohibit the sale and production of toys that use real-time conversational AI, natural language models, or persistent chat capabilities targeted at children. Lawmakers framing the proposal emphasize that existing safety frameworks for digital products and toys were not designed for machine-learning systems that can generate unpredictable responses, model behaviors, or learn from interactions over time.

The proposal arrives amid heightened scrutiny of how conversational AI interacts with young users. Incidents and lawsuits tied to prolonged chatbot conversations, privacy concerns, and troubling content have driven calls for more prescriptive rules. Proponents argue a measured pause will prevent avoidable harms while regulators design age-appropriate guardrails.

What would the ban actually do?

This section answers a focused question to help readers understand the core policy mechanics and scope of the proposed AI chatbot toys ban.

• Duration: A four-year moratorium on sale and manufacture targeted at giving regulators time to produce safety standards and testing protocols.
• Scope: Applies to physical toys and bundled devices marketed to or reasonably expected to be used by people under 18 that include conversational AI or persistent chat features.
• Activities covered: Manufacture, distribution, importation, and retail sales within the state while the moratorium is in effect.
• Objective: Create a window for regulators to require safety engineering, content controls, privacy protections, and auditing before such products reach children.

How real are the safety and privacy concerns?

Concerns fall into several categories, many of which intersect and compound each other for minors.

Harmful or inappropriate content

Conversational models can produce unexpected or explicitly inappropriate content, including violent, sexual, or self-harm-related suggestions. When those models are readily accessible in devices designed for children, the risk profile changes because of developmental vulnerability and the potential for prolonged, trusting interactions.

Manipulation and persuasion

AI-enabled companions may reinforce behaviors, preferences, and beliefs. When the target is a child, persuasive or manipulative language can have outsized effects on learning, social development, and emotional well-being.

Data collection and profiling

Toys with connected AI often collect voice, behavioral, and preference data to personalize responses. Persistent profiling of minors raises privacy risks, potential misuse of data, and concerns about long-term tracking without informed consent.

Mental health and social effects

Extended interactions with an artificial companion may affect social development, emotional regulation, and perception of human relationships. For analysis of conversational AI and mental health risks, see our coverage on chatbot mental health risks.

How would this affect parents, manufacturers, and retailers?

The proposal would produce short-term disruption and longer-term regulatory clarity. Key impacts include:

1. Parents: A temporary reduction in available AI-enabled toys could remove immediate risk vectors while regulators define safety expectations. Parents will need clearer guidance on what features to avoid and how to evaluate safety claims.
2. Manufacturers: Companies that planned or are selling chatbot-integrated toys would face a halt to launches or sales in California. That pause may incentivize stronger safety engineering and external audits but could also impose cost and market access challenges.
3. Retailers and e-commerce: Retailers will need to enforce compliance checks and may be required to prevent sales of covered items to California residents during the moratorium.

Could this ban face legal or political pushback?

Yes. The policy sits at the intersection of state consumer safety authority and a broader national debate about whether federal rules should preempt state-level AI regulations. Stakeholders opposing the moratorium may argue it stifles innovation or creates market fragmentation. Supporters will point to state responsibilities to protect children and the need for precaution given the technology’s rapid evolution.

What regulatory approaches should fill the pause?

A multi-disciplinary approach will be necessary to replace a moratorium with sensible, enforceable rules. Regulators and industry should consider:

• Mandatory safety testing and third-party audits for conversational behavior with children
• Strict limits on types of content that can be generated by child-directed systems
• Privacy-by-design requirements, including data minimization, limited retention, and parental consent models
• Transparent disclosure of training data sources and known limitations
• Age verification and robust parental controls with verifiable opt-in features
• Ongoing monitoring, incident reporting, and accessible redress channels for families

Technical safeguards to prioritize

From a product development perspective, several technical mitigations can reduce risk prior to broader regulation:

• Content filtering layers tuned for developmental appropriateness
• Constrained response generation with safety templates
• On-device processing for sensitive interactions to reduce data exfiltration
• Explainability features so parents can understand why a toy said something
• Rate limits and interaction windows to prevent prolonged unsupervised conversations

How have previous policy efforts and industry moves shaped this debate?

Lawmakers and safety advocates have already pushed for tighter guardrails around AI systems used by minors. California has a history of advancing child-safety and privacy measures, and recent initiatives have focused on requiring safeguards for conversational systems and vulnerable users. For broader context on evolving AI safety policy and how regulations are developing, see our analysis of AI safety guidelines for teens and the ongoing federal-state regulatory debate.

What practical steps should parents take now?

While policymakers deliberate, parents can take immediate actions to reduce risk:

1. Review device privacy settings and disable unneeded cloud backups
2. Limit use time for connected toys and supervise interactions
3. Favor products that detail safety testing and parental control features
4. Educate children about what an AI companion can and cannot do
5. Report troubling interactions to the vendor and relevant consumer protection agencies

How likely is this to become law and what happens next?

The bill will move through committee hearings, stakeholder testimony, and potential amendments. Expect a robust public comment period where industry groups, child-safety advocates, and civil liberties organizations weigh in. Lawmakers typically balance protecting vulnerable populations with preserving innovation, so final legislation may narrow scope, shorten duration, or include carve-outs tied to demonstrable safety certifications.

Why a cautious pause may be necessary

Unlike traditional toys, AI-enabled companions can adapt, converse, and produce content that was not explicitly programmed by manufacturers. That unpredictability is at the heart of the concern. A temporary, well-scoped pause can prevent widespread deployment before minimum safety and privacy standards are in place, reducing the likelihood of mass exposure to harmful interactions.

Key takeaways

• SB 867 proposes a four-year moratorium on the sale and manufacture of AI chatbot toys for minors in California in order to allow regulators time to set safety standards.
• Risks include inappropriate or manipulative content, privacy and profiling concerns, and mental health impacts of prolonged interactions.
• The pause could spur stronger safety-by-design practices in industry but will also generate legal and commercial debate about state-level restrictions on emerging technologies.
• Parents should proactively manage device settings, supervise use, and favor products with clear safety controls while the regulatory picture develops.

What should policymakers and manufacturers do next?

Policymakers should use the moratorium window to convene experts in child development, AI safety, privacy law, and consumer protection. Manufacturers should invest in independent safety testing, transparent disclosures, and parental control features so products can meet future standards. Collaboration across public and private sectors can yield practical certification regimes and technical benchmarks that keep kids safe without permanently blocking beneficial innovations.

Want to stay informed?

Follow our ongoing coverage for updates on SB 867, related safety standards, and how legislation shapes the future of AI in consumer products. We will track committee progress, public feedback, and regulatory proposals that emerge during the moratorium period.

For further reading on AI safety and the risks of conversational systems, check these analysis pieces: Chatbot mental health risks, AI safety for teens, and the federal-state AI regulation debate.

Call to action: Subscribe to Artificial Intel News for timely policy updates, expert analysis, and practical guidance on AI safety. Share this article with parents, educators, and policymakers to help shape a safer future for children and technology.