California Senate Bill 867 would ban all toys that include companion chatbots

A version of the following public comment was submitted to members of the California Legislature on March 25, 2026.

We share the sponsor's goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful interactions with AI companion chatbots. However, we believe that SB 867's approach is an overly broad policy response that would deny children access to potentially beneficial technologies and discourage the innovation, investment, and industry collaboration needed to make these products safer.

SB 867 bans all toys that include companion chatbots, regardless of what safety measures are implemented by the manufacturer. A toy with built-in content filters and parental controls would be prohibited on the same terms as one without any safeguards. This removes any incentive for manufacturers to compete on safety, because no level of safety makes their product legal to sell.

California's existing toy safety framework does not prohibit entire product categories. It identifies specific hazards, sets safety standards, and holds manufacturers accountable for meeting them. That same regulatory logic should apply to AI-enabled toys.

How banning AI chatbots in toys is bad for California

The amended version of the bill, which expands the definition of a "toy" to cover any product designed for use in play by children under 18, goes well beyond the age thresholds in existing toy safety standards. This scope is broad enough to capture AI-powered tutoring tools, interactive learning platforms, and other educational technologies that incorporate play-based design, simply because they use a companion chatbot to engage young users. The definition should be narrowed to align with established standards and ensure that educational products are not swept into a ban designed to address risks posed by recreational toys.

Although SB 867 sunsets on January 1, 2031, the ban does not resolve the safety concerns - it simply postpones them. When the ban expires, lawmakers will still need to determine how to regulate these products, but they will be no closer to a framework than they are today, and may face an underinvested industry. In the meantime, foreign developers and toy manufacturers will continue building these products without regard for California law, while California-based developers, including those trying to build responsibly and with strong ethical safeguards, will have their hands tied. Rather than freezing the market for four years, the legislature should use that time to work with manufacturers in developing meaningful safety standards. A 4-year freeze would only limit the insights manufacturers can offer.

California already has the building blocks for effective regulation, which the state should continue to build upon rather than take a hard pause on innovation. We welcome the opportunity to advise the legislature on ways to build on the state's existing foundation of regulations, and thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony.