AI Policy Wiki
Dashboard

Tennessee SB 1580 / HB 1470 — AI Mental-Health Professional Impersonation Prohibition

high confidence · updated 2026-06-06

Tennessee statute (Title 33, ch. 1, part 2 §33-1-205) prohibiting AI systems from advertising or representing themselves as a qualified mental health professional. Effective July 1, 2026 — earliest of the 2026 state chatbot/AI-mental-health wave. $5,000 per violation under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.

Tennessee SB 1580 / HB 1470 is a state statute that prohibits any artificial intelligence system from advertising or representing to the public that it is, or can act as, a qualified mental health professional. It codifies a new section, §33-1-205, in Tenn. Code Ann. Title 33, ch. 1, part 2, enforces the prohibition through the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 at $5,000 per violation, and takes effect July 1, 2026, the earliest effective date among the 2026 wave of state chatbot and AI mental-health laws.

FieldDetail
Senate sponsorPage Walley (SB 1580, ID 009808)
House sponsorTim Hicks (HB 1470)
CodificationTenn. Code Ann. Title 33, ch. 1, part 2 (new §33-1-205)
Effective dateJuly 1, 2026 ("the public welfare requiring it")

Scope and definitions

Under §33-1-205(c), "artificial intelligence" means models and systems capable of performing functions generally associated with human intelligence, including reasoning and learning. The Tennessee definition does not require "general public access" or capture-by-conversation simulation, so it applies to any AI system that engages in mental-health representation, not only to conversational companion products.

Among the 2026 state AI mental-health laws, Tennessee's is the narrowest in subject matter: it addresses professional impersonation alone, rather than the broader disclosure, minor-protection, or engagement-design provisions found in California SB 243, Washington HB 2225, Oregon SB 1546, Idaho SB 1297, and Nebraska LB525.

Key provisions

The operative prohibition, §33-1-205(a), states: "A person who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system shall not advertise or represent to the public that such system is or is able to act as a qualified mental health professional." The obligation falls on any person who develops or deploys such a system.

Enforcement and penalties

A violation of §33-1-205 constitutes a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (Title 47, ch. 18, part 1), specifically an unfair or deceptive act or practice (§33-1-205(b)). Section 2 of the act amends Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-104(b) to add violation of §33-1-205 to the list of unfair or deceptive acts subject to TCPA enforcement.

The civil penalty is $5,000 per violation, applied notwithstanding the TCPA's general civil-penalty caps. The per-violation amount is five times the $1,000-per-violation penalty in Idaho and Nebraska, but Tennessee's statute does not include the per-operator $500,000 aggregate cap that those two states impose. Because enforcement runs through the TCPA, the Tennessee Attorney General can bring an enforcement action without developing new doctrine, and a high-volume platform offering large numbers of professional-impersonation interactions could accrue per-violation penalties without an aggregate ceiling.

Comparative position

AspectTennessee SB 1580Other 2026 chatbot laws
ScopeProfessional impersonation onlyDisclosure / minor-protection / engagement-design
Per-violation penalty$5,000 (no aggregate cap)$1,000/$500K cap (ID/NE), CPA-driven (WA), $1K stat. dmg. (OR)
Effective date2026-07-01 (earliest)2026-01-01 (CA) → 2027-07-01 (ID/NE)
PRANo (TCPA only)Yes (CA, OR, WA); No (ID, NE)
Sexual content rules for minorsNot addressedYes
Suicide protocolNot addressedYes (CA, ID, NE, OR, WA)

In Pennsylvania v. Character.AI (Shapiro/Sunday, filed May 5, 2026), Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court suit alleges that Character.AI's chatbot "Emilie" represented itself as a licensed psychiatrist, supplied a fake license number, and offered to prescribe medication. Tennessee §33-1-205 would treat the same conduct as a TCPA violation. Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. is an antecedent case raising professional-impersonation concerns.

Relationships

Source

Primary text: Raw Sources/Tennessee SB 1580.md (source_class: foundational).