Updates
EPIC Urges Amendments to Maryland Chatbots Bill
March 27, 2026
EPIC Counsel Kara Williams testified yesterday in front of the Maryland Senate Finance Committee on H.B. 952, a bill that seeks to regulate companion chatbots.
While EPIC supports the goals of the bill—preventing the devastating harms chatbots are causing—the bill would require significant amendments to achieve this goal. In our testimony, EPIC suggested several ways to amend the bill to make it workable, effective, and less vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.
“Big Tech companies are currently operating with very few rules and very little oversight, and they’ve proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate,” EPIC wrote in testimony. “Thus, it is essential that the Committee advance a bill that sets clear rules of the road for chatbot providers to protect Marylanders from chatbot harms. As currently drafted, H.B. 952 does not achieve this goal, but with amendments, it could be an important step toward securing protections for Marylanders.”
EPIC has long advocated for human-centered approach to tech regulation and has recently published model legislation on both chatbots and platform design to put this principle into workable policy.
Support Our Work
EPIC's work is funded by the support of individuals like you, who allow us to continue to protect privacy, open government, and democratic values in the information age.
Donate
Facts Only
EPIC Counsel Kara Williams testified on March 27, 2026, before the Maryland Senate Finance Committee.
The testimony addressed H.B. 952, a bill seeking to regulate companion chatbots.
EPIC supports the bill's goals of preventing chatbot-related harms.
EPIC stated the bill requires significant amendments to be effective and legally resilient.
The organization suggested amendments to make the bill workable and less vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.
EPIC criticized Big Tech for operating with minimal rules and oversight.
EPIC has published model legislation on chatbots and platform design.
The testimony urged the Committee to advance a bill with clear rules for chatbot providers.
EPIC's work is funded by individual donations.
The organization focuses on protecting privacy, open government, and democratic values.
Executive Summary
EPIC Counsel Kara Williams testified before the Maryland Senate Finance Committee on March 27, 2026, regarding H.B. 952, a bill aimed at regulating companion chatbots. While EPIC supports the bill's intent to mitigate harms caused by chatbots, it argues that the current draft requires significant amendments to be effective and legally sound. EPIC's testimony highlighted concerns about Big Tech's lack of self-regulation and proposed specific changes to strengthen the bill, including clearer rules for chatbot providers to protect Maryland residents. EPIC has previously advocated for human-centered tech regulation and has published model legislation on chatbots and platform design. The organization emphasized the need for robust oversight to prevent potential harms while acknowledging the bill's potential as a step forward with the right modifications.
The debate reflects broader tensions between technological innovation and consumer protection, with EPIC positioning itself as a advocate for privacy and democratic values in the digital age. The outcome of the bill remains uncertain, but EPIC's involvement underscores the growing scrutiny over AI governance and the role of advocacy groups in shaping policy.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that EPIC is advocating for responsible AI governance, highlighting legitimate concerns about unchecked corporate power and the potential harms of chatbots. Their call for amendments reflects a principled stance on balancing innovation with consumer protection, and their track record of model legislation lends credibility to their position. However, the framing of "devastating harms" without specific examples could risk slipping into moral panic (ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey), where broad claims about harm are used to justify sweeping regulation without concrete evidence. The appeal to "protect Marylanders" also carries emotional weight, which could be leveraged to bypass critical scrutiny of the proposed amendments.
Root cause: The narrative assumes that regulatory intervention is the primary solution to tech-related harms, echoing historical patterns of advocacy groups pushing for government oversight in response to perceived corporate overreach. This paradigm often presumes that legislation can outpace technological evolution, a debatable assumption given the rapid development of AI. The unstated tension here is between innovation and precaution—how much regulation is necessary before it stifles progress?
Implications: If the bill passes with EPIC's amendments, it could set a precedent for state-level AI regulation, potentially fragmenting national standards. The costs would likely fall on smaller tech companies, while larger firms with legal resources could navigate compliance more easily. Second-order consequences might include reduced innovation in Maryland or companies relocating to avoid stricter rules.
Bridge questions: What specific harms have chatbots caused that justify this regulation? How might the proposed amendments interact with existing federal laws? What alternative solutions, beyond legislation, could address these concerns?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would likely amplify fear of AI harms while downplaying the benefits, using emotional appeals to rush legislation. The actual content here is measured, focusing on policy specifics rather than sensationalism, so it does not match that pattern.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (potential overgeneralization of harms)