Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
6
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
New Jersey Assembly Bill A5607 was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on Oct. 5, and on Oct. 19, the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee reported the bill favorably and referred it to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill, which supporters describe as based on a “People-First Chatbot” model bill developed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Consumer Federation of America, and Fairplay, would establish content and data privacy requirements for chatbot providers and expressly subject chatbots to product liability claims.
The bill is not yet law, and none of its requirements is currently in effect; the provisions described below reflect the bill as introduced and may change.
The bill defines an “artificial intelligence chatbot” broadly as any “software application, web interface, or computer program that simulates human conversation and interaction through text, visual images, video, or aural communications.”
A “chatbot provider” is any individual or business entity, including any member, affiliate, subsidiary, or beneficial owner, that “creates, distributes, or otherwise makes available a chatbot.” Because the definition of chatbot provider reaches entities that merely make a chatbot available, it could extend beyond AI developers to businesses that deploy chatbots on their websites or apps, such as customer service assistants. The bill also designates chatbot providers as “controllers” under the New Jersey Data Privacy Act, P.L.2023, c.266 (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 et seq.), which would layer that Act’s controller obligations on top of the bill’s chatbot-specific requirements. Committee discussion also noted a lack of clarity about the bill’s geographic scope.
The bill’s coverage is also notably broader than chatbot laws already enacted and in effect in other states. California’s SB 243 (effective Jan. 1, 2026) and New York’s AI Companion Models Law (General Business Law Article 47, effective Nov. 5, 2025) apply to “companion” chatbots, and SB 243 expressly excludes chatbots used solely for customer service. A5607, as introduced, contains no comparable carve-out for customer service, productivity, or other general-purpose chatbots.
The bill’s most significant provision would make a chatbot a “product” for purposes of a product liability action. It would also impose on chatbot providers a “duty to ensure that use of their chatbot does not cause injury to a user.”
Under the bill, a chatbot provider would be liable for any injury to a user from use of its chatbot, even if: (1) the provider exercised all reasonable care in the design and distribution of the chatbot, or (2) the provider did not directly distribute the chatbot to the user or otherwise enter into a contractual relationship with the user. This would create a strict liability standard that does not depend on fault or privity.
This framework, if enacted, would depart significantly from current New Jersey law under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA), N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq. Although the NJPLA already provides for strict liability, it requires a claimant to prove that the product was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate warnings. The NJPLA also provides statutory defenses to design defect claims, including the absence of a practical and technically feasible alternative design. The NJPLA also allows a product seller, in many circumstances, to be relieved of strict liability claims by identifying the manufacturer. A5607, as introduced, would make a provider liable for “any injury” from use of its chatbot and does not expressly address whether proof of a defect is required or whether these NJPLA defenses would remain available.
The bill would also codify a position that courts have only begun to address. In Garcia v. Character Technologies, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May 2025 allowed product liability claims against a companion chatbot developer to proceed, rejecting at the pleading stage the argument that the chatbot was a service rather than a product and declining to hold that its output was protected speech; the case was later dismissed following a settlement in January 2026. That ruling was a pleading-stage decision by a federal trial court applying Florida law and is not binding in New Jersey. Similar claims against OpenAI have been coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court (In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431) and remain pending. A5607 would resolve the product question by statute for New Jersey claims, although First Amendment challenges to the provision would remain possible.
As introduced, the bill would prohibit chatbot providers from:
Several definitions in the bill would narrow these prohibitions in important ways. “Training” excludes testing to identify risks of harm to users and modifications made to address those risks, “profiling” excludes processing chat logs for user safety or compliance with the bill, and “sell” excludes disclosures to a third party that processes data on the provider’s behalf.
The bill also sets a demanding standard for “affirmative consent.” Consent would have to be requested in a clear and conspicuous standalone disclosure, written in easy-to-understand language, and offered in each language in which the chatbot is provided. The option to refuse would have to be at least as prominent as, and take no more steps than, the option to consent. Consent could not be inferred from inaction or continued use and would not include acceptance of general terms of use or agreement obtained through misleading statements or dark patterns.
Chatbot providers would also have affirmative obligations to post information about their chatbot on their website, allow users to access and download their chat logs in a portable format, maintain and publicly post a written comprehensive data security program with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, assess their chatbot for risks of harm to users on a monthly basis, and mitigate identified risks. Several of these obligations would be defined further through rules adopted by the New Jersey Attorney General.
A chatbot provider found to have allegedly violated the bill would be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for each violation, collected in a summary proceeding under the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999, and the Attorney General could bring a civil action for injunctive relief. Users harmed by violations of the bill’s privacy and operational requirements could sue in the Superior Court of the county in which they reside and recover the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per violation, along with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Violations of the professional-impersonation prohibition would also be actionable under the Consumer Fraud Act.
Because statutory damages of $5,000 per violation would be available as a floor, regardless of the amount of actual damages, and liability under the product liability provision would not depend on fault, potential exposure could grow quickly where a single practice allegedly affects many users. Defense practitioners have warned that the bill could “open the floodgates” to litigation, noting that a provider violating the statute as to one user is likely doing so as to all users.
The bill states that it would not limit other New Jersey laws and that, in the event of a conflict, the law affording the greatest protection to users would control. If enacted, it would take effect on the first day of the sixth month after enactment, although the Attorney General could take anticipatory implementation steps before then.
A5607 is one of several pending New Jersey proposals addressing AI harms. A5090, the “GAI Accountability Act,” was introduced in May 2026 and remains pending in committee. It would impose $20,000-per-violation civil penalties, enforceable by the Attorney General, on generative AI platforms that fail to prevent certain harmful conduct, including endangering the welfare of children, subject to a reasonable-efforts affirmative defense. Consumer and privacy advocates supported A5607 in committee, while the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, TechNet, and Meta opposed it, with the Chamber arguing that the state’s existing privacy law already addresses some of the bill’s concerns and urging a comprehensive AI framework rather than a patchwork of requirements.
No federal preemption currently applies to A5607 or other state AI laws. Executive Order 14365 (Dec. 11, 2025) created a U.S. Department of Justice task force to challenge state AI laws, and the White House has asked Congress to preempt “unduly burdensome.” But an executive order itself cannot preempt state law, and Congress has not enacted preemption legislation. Whether future federal action would reach a law like A5607 is uncertain.
A5607 remains pending legislation. It has cleared one committee and been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but it must still pass both houses of the Legislature and be signed by the Governor before it becomes law, and it may change as it moves through the legislative process. Because the bill is not yet law, the steps below are preparatory rather than current compliance obligations, although several of our suggested steps overlap with obligations that may already apply under existing law, such as the New Jersey Data Privacy Act. In the meantime, chatbot providers, including businesses that deploy chatbots built on third-party models, should consider the following steps:
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
New Jersey Assembly Bill A5607 was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on Oct. 5, and on Oct. 19, the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee reported the bill favorably and referred it to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill, which supporters describe as based on a “People-First Chatbot” model bill developed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Consumer Federation of America, and Fairplay, would establish content and data privacy requirements for chatbot providers and expressly subject chatbots to product liability claims.
The bill is not yet law, and none of its requirements is currently in effect; the provisions described below reflect the bill as introduced and may change.
The bill defines an “artificial intelligence chatbot” broadly as any “software application, web interface, or computer program that simulates human conversation and interaction through text, visual images, video, or aural communications.”
A “chatbot provider” is any individual or business entity, including any member, affiliate, subsidiary, or beneficial owner, that “creates, distributes, or otherwise makes available a chatbot.” Because the definition of chatbot provider reaches entities that merely make a chatbot available, it could extend beyond AI developers to businesses that deploy chatbots on their websites or apps, such as customer service assistants. The bill also designates chatbot providers as “controllers” under the New Jersey Data Privacy Act, P.L.2023, c.266 (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 et seq.), which would layer that Act’s controller obligations on top of the bill’s chatbot-specific requirements. Committee discussion also noted a lack of clarity about the bill’s geographic scope.
The bill’s coverage is also notably broader than chatbot laws already enacted and in effect in other states. California’s SB 243 (effective Jan. 1, 2026) and New York’s AI Companion Models Law (General Business Law Article 47, effective Nov. 5, 2025) apply to “companion” chatbots, and SB 243 expressly excludes chatbots used solely for customer service. A5607, as introduced, contains no comparable carve-out for customer service, productivity, or other general-purpose chatbots.
The bill’s most significant provision would make a chatbot a “product” for purposes of a product liability action. It would also impose on chatbot providers a “duty to ensure that use of their chatbot does not cause injury to a user.”
Under the bill, a chatbot provider would be liable for any injury to a user from use of its chatbot, even if: (1) the provider exercised all reasonable care in the design and distribution of the chatbot, or (2) the provider did not directly distribute the chatbot to the user or otherwise enter into a contractual relationship with the user. This would create a strict liability standard that does not depend on fault or privity.
This framework, if enacted, would depart significantly from current New Jersey law under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA), N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 et seq. Although the NJPLA already provides for strict liability, it requires a claimant to prove that the product was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate warnings. The NJPLA also provides statutory defenses to design defect claims, including the absence of a practical and technically feasible alternative design. The NJPLA also allows a product seller, in many circumstances, to be relieved of strict liability claims by identifying the manufacturer. A5607, as introduced, would make a provider liable for “any injury” from use of its chatbot and does not expressly address whether proof of a defect is required or whether these NJPLA defenses would remain available.
The bill would also codify a position that courts have only begun to address. In Garcia v. Character Technologies, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May 2025 allowed product liability claims against a companion chatbot developer to proceed, rejecting at the pleading stage the argument that the chatbot was a service rather than a product and declining to hold that its output was protected speech; the case was later dismissed following a settlement in January 2026. That ruling was a pleading-stage decision by a federal trial court applying Florida law and is not binding in New Jersey. Similar claims against OpenAI have been coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court (In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431) and remain pending. A5607 would resolve the product question by statute for New Jersey claims, although First Amendment challenges to the provision would remain possible.
As introduced, the bill would prohibit chatbot providers from:
Several definitions in the bill would narrow these prohibitions in important ways. “Training” excludes testing to identify risks of harm to users and modifications made to address those risks, “profiling” excludes processing chat logs for user safety or compliance with the bill, and “sell” excludes disclosures to a third party that processes data on the provider’s behalf.
The bill also sets a demanding standard for “affirmative consent.” Consent would have to be requested in a clear and conspicuous standalone disclosure, written in easy-to-understand language, and offered in each language in which the chatbot is provided. The option to refuse would have to be at least as prominent as, and take no more steps than, the option to consent. Consent could not be inferred from inaction or continued use and would not include acceptance of general terms of use or agreement obtained through misleading statements or dark patterns.
Chatbot providers would also have affirmative obligations to post information about their chatbot on their website, allow users to access and download their chat logs in a portable format, maintain and publicly post a written comprehensive data security program with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, assess their chatbot for risks of harm to users on a monthly basis, and mitigate identified risks. Several of these obligations would be defined further through rules adopted by the New Jersey Attorney General.
A chatbot provider found to have allegedly violated the bill would be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for each violation, collected in a summary proceeding under the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999, and the Attorney General could bring a civil action for injunctive relief. Users harmed by violations of the bill’s privacy and operational requirements could sue in the Superior Court of the county in which they reside and recover the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per violation, along with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Violations of the professional-impersonation prohibition would also be actionable under the Consumer Fraud Act.
Because statutory damages of $5,000 per violation would be available as a floor, regardless of the amount of actual damages, and liability under the product liability provision would not depend on fault, potential exposure could grow quickly where a single practice allegedly affects many users. Defense practitioners have warned that the bill could “open the floodgates” to litigation, noting that a provider violating the statute as to one user is likely doing so as to all users.
The bill states that it would not limit other New Jersey laws and that, in the event of a conflict, the law affording the greatest protection to users would control. If enacted, it would take effect on the first day of the sixth month after enactment, although the Attorney General could take anticipatory implementation steps before then.
A5607 is one of several pending New Jersey proposals addressing AI harms. A5090, the “GAI Accountability Act,” was introduced in May 2026 and remains pending in committee. It would impose $20,000-per-violation civil penalties, enforceable by the Attorney General, on generative AI platforms that fail to prevent certain harmful conduct, including endangering the welfare of children, subject to a reasonable-efforts affirmative defense. Consumer and privacy advocates supported A5607 in committee, while the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, TechNet, and Meta opposed it, with the Chamber arguing that the state’s existing privacy law already addresses some of the bill’s concerns and urging a comprehensive AI framework rather than a patchwork of requirements.
No federal preemption currently applies to A5607 or other state AI laws. Executive Order 14365 (Dec. 11, 2025) created a U.S. Department of Justice task force to challenge state AI laws, and the White House has asked Congress to preempt “unduly burdensome.” But an executive order itself cannot preempt state law, and Congress has not enacted preemption legislation. Whether future federal action would reach a law like A5607 is uncertain.
A5607 remains pending legislation. It has cleared one committee and been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but it must still pass both houses of the Legislature and be signed by the Governor before it becomes law, and it may change as it moves through the legislative process. Because the bill is not yet law, the steps below are preparatory rather than current compliance obligations, although several of our suggested steps overlap with obligations that may already apply under existing law, such as the New Jersey Data Privacy Act. In the meantime, chatbot providers, including businesses that deploy chatbots built on third-party models, should consider the following steps:
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC