Sacramento. Calif. – The Computer & Communications Industry Association is taking an Oppose Unless Amend position to California’s AB 1988, the “Preventing AI User Self Endangerment (PAUSE) Act,” warning that the legislation raises privacy, implementation, and legal concerns that could undermine user safety and create unintended consequences for AI consumers.
CCIA supports efforts to improve online safety and ensure users have access to critical resources during moments of crisis. However, the association argues that AB 1988 takes a prescriptive approach that could prevent technology providers from adapting safety practices to evolving guidance, technological developments, and user needs.
The legislation requires companion chatbot operators to implement a “crisis interruption pause” after certain statements by users and mandates specific intervention language. CCIA warns that this approach could limit providers’ ability to use flexible, evidence-based safety practices and recommends focusing on safety outcomes rather than mandated procedures.
CCIA also raises concerns about the bill’s human review and reporting requirements, which could create privacy risks for users discussing sensitive topics. The association explains that AB 1988’s definition of “credible crisis expression” could capture non-crisis speech. The bill’s prescriptive intervention requirements also conflict with existing California law and may prevent operators from adopting evolving clinical best practices for crisis response.
The following statement can be attributed to Megan Stokes, State Policy Director at CCIA, who is testifying before the California legislature on Monday:
“CCIA supports efforts to connect people in crisis with resources and to promote responsible safety practices online. AB 1988 takes an overly prescriptive approach that could create privacy concerns, capture non-crisis speech, and limit providers’ ability to adapt their safety measures as technology and clinical best practices evolve. The bill’s vague standards also create significant legal uncertainty and could expose providers to costly litigation without clear guidance on how compliance will be judged.”
