"The Rest of the West: Oregon and Washington Build on California Chatbot Law" is an April 16, 2026 article by Justine Gluck, a Policy Analyst at the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF). It compares two newly enacted companion-chatbot laws — Oregon's SB 1546 and Washington's HB 2225, both effective January 1, 2027 — against California's SB 243 (effective January 1, 2026), on which both build. The article argues that the three laws regulate the same subject (chatbot interactions with users, particularly minors) but diverge in scope, requirements, and enforcement.
Scope of the "companion chatbot" definition
The article distinguishes the three statutes by how each defines a regulated "companion chatbot." California and Washington use a capability-based test, asking whether a system can generate human-like, relationship-sustaining interactions; California's also asks whether the system can meet a user's "social needs," which the article describes as making Washington's definition slightly narrower than California's. Oregon instead uses a behavior-based test, asking whether a system actually exhibits relational behaviors such as retaining information across sessions, initiating emotional dialogue, and sustaining personal conversations.
| State | Approach | Key criterion |
|---|---|---|
| California | Capability-based | Can the system generate human-like, relationship-sustaining interactions and meet a user's "social needs"? |
| Washington | Capability-based | Can the system generate human-like, relationship-sustaining interactions? (described as slightly narrower than California) |
| Oregon | Behavior-based | Does the system actually exhibit relational behaviors (retain information across sessions, initiate emotional dialogue, sustain personal conversations)? |
Gluck characterizes Oregon's behavior-based definition as narrower, because a system that can exhibit relational behavior but has not yet demonstrated it in practice may fall outside scope. All three laws carve out customer service, video games, and voice assistants; Oregon additionally excludes patient care services.
Disclosure, self-harm, and engagement-design requirements
On disclosure triggers, California and Oregon require disclosure when a reasonable person would believe they are interacting with a human, a perception-based trigger. Washington, which the article describes as the most prescriptive and broad, requires disclosure at the start of every interaction and at regular intervals of at least every three hours.
For minor-specific disclosures, the article ranks the knowledge standards: Oregon applies to a provider that "knows or has reason to believe" a user is a minor, described as the broadest standard; Washington applies on actual knowledge or where a system is "directed to children," which the article notes could expand scope; and California falls between the two.
All three laws require connecting users to crisis hotlines when a user expresses suicidal ideation. Washington adds broader content restrictions on what chatbots may say to users in crisis. Washington is also described as uniquely prescriptive on engagement design, prohibiting certain techniques likely to create compulsive use or unhealthy attachment in minors, whereas California has minimal engagement-design requirements.
Enforcement
The three laws differ in enforcement mechanism and available damages. California and Oregon both provide a private right of action; Washington enforces through its Consumer Protection Act. California and Washington provide for statutory damages, while Oregon's private right of action carries no statutory damages.
| State | Mechanism | Damages |
|---|---|---|
| California | Private right of action | Statutory damages |
| Washington | Consumer Protection Act | Statutory damages |
| Oregon | Private right of action | No statutory damages |
Multi-jurisdiction compliance
The article frames the three laws as a compliance problem for companies operating chatbots in all three states, which must simultaneously satisfy Washington's every-three-hours disclosure requirement (the most prescriptive), Oregon's behavior-based scope definition (which may require a scoping analysis), and California's capability-based definition (the broadest scope trigger). Because the requirements overlap but do not align, Gluck observes that companies may default to the most restrictive standard across jurisdictions, which the article presents as an instance of the AI Compliance Industry / Regulatory Fragmentation dynamic operating within a single region.
Diffusion pattern
Gluck situates the two new laws within a pattern of California AI legislation being adopted by other states: California SB 53 was followed by New York's RAISE Act, and California SB 243 was followed by Oregon SB 1546 and Washington HB 2225. With Oregon and Washington following California, the article observes that the West Coast now has a three-state chatbot-regulation framework, and notes that dozens of similar bills are under consideration nationally, suggesting these West Coast laws may serve as a template for broader adoption.
Provenance
Published by the Future of Privacy Forum on April 16, 2026, authored by FPF Policy Analyst Justine Gluck. The article contextualizes California SB 243 — Companion Chatbots and provides the comparative basis for documenting Oregon SB 1546 and Washington HB 2225 as companion laws.
Relationships
- supports: California SB 243 — Companion Chatbots — companion laws building on the California model
- supports: AI Compliance Industry / Regulatory Fragmentation — multi-state chatbot compliance as a fragmentation case
- supports: AI Mental Health and Psychological Harm — engagement-design restrictions as a new regulatory category
- related: Companion Chatbot Harms — Cross-Cutting Analysis — analysis page on chatbot harms; these laws are the regulatory response
- related: Incentives or Obligations? The U.S. Regulatory Approach to Voluntary AI Governance Standards — same FPF institution; complementary regulatory-landscape analysis