BRIEFING PACKET

1. Executive Summary

Foundational AI models are rapidly becoming the emotional infrastructure of daily digital life. These systems now mediate everything from late-night loneliness to crisis searches, from teen self-esteem spirals to adult anxiety loops. Despite their growing psychological footprint, AI developers today face no legal requirement to prove that their mental-health safety measures actually work.

California already regulates catastrophic AI risk through SB 53. But mental-health harms—manipulation, dependency, disordered thinking, self-harm reinforcement—fall through the cracks.

This bill closes that gap by requiring the developers of frontier and foundational models to:

1. submit their mental-health safety protocols to independent academic or civil-society researchers, and

2. provide secure data access necessary to evaluate those protections.

In return, companies that comply receive incentives: safe harbor protections, procurement eligibility, and public-good recognition. Those that don’t face penalties and heightened liability.

This is the Article 40 moment for U.S. AI regulation—California can lead where the federal government is stalled.

2. The Problem

AI Is Already Influencing Mental Health

AI models respond to intimate user queries about self-worth, crisis, relationships, grief, shame, loneliness, trauma, and identity. Early studies and user stories show:

• conversational AIs can reinforce compulsive usage patterns;

• emotionally vulnerable users can develop dependency on AI interactions;

• some systems generate content that amplifies distress;

• hallucinated empathy can distort a user’s perception of reality;

• content filters miss self-harm adjacent prompts in unpredictable ways.

These aren’t hypothetical harms—they’re happening now, at scale, with no systemic oversight.

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

For more than a decade, social-media companies:

• claimed their platforms were safe;

• promised to collaborate with researchers;

• quietly shut down APIs and blocked independent audits;

• left scientists guessing about mental-health effects on millions of people.

The result was a lost decade of research, and a generation of teens who lived inside a black-box behavioral laboratory without public scrutiny.

Without intervention, AI will repeat this failure—faster, deeper, and with more intimate stakes.

3. Why Current Law Isn’t Enough

SB 53 (California’s frontier AI law)

Covers catastrophic risks (e.g., mass-scale chemical, cyber, infrastructure harm), reporting of high-impact incidents, and large-model governance.

What it does NOT cover

• day-to-day psychological risk

• mental-health manipulation or dependency

• vulnerable user protection

• deceptive emotional design

• access for outside researchers

• deployment-phase harms

• effect on minors and crisis-prone populations

Mental-health harm sits in a regulatory void—one that companies are currently navigating with voluntary, unverified promises.

4. What the Proposed Law Does

1. Requires Independent Validation

Foundational AI developers must obtain external evaluation of their mental-health safety measures from vetted academic or civil-society researchers.

2. Guarantees Secure Researcher Access

Mirrors Article 40 of the European Digital Services Act:

• vetted researchers receive controlled access to logs, prompts, red-team data;

• strict privacy and data-protection standards;

• oversight by a designated California AI safety office.

3. Establishes a Carrot–Stick Framework

Incentives for compliant companies:

• safe-harbor protections for unforeseeable harms

• procurement eligibility

• innovation grants

• annual “Verified Mental-Health Mitigation” designation

Penalties for non-compliant companies:

• administrative fines

• increased liability

• temporary California deployment restrictions for repeat violators

4. Protects Privacy

All researcher access is limited, auditable, secure, and privacy-preserving.

5. Why This Law Is Good for California

Protects Residents

Mental-health risk is the most common, widespread, and immediate harm of generative AI systems. California has the moral obligation—and the public mandate—to intervene.

Strengthens Trust in the AI Sector

Companies that pursue external validation build public confidence and demonstrate leadership. Transparency is not a burden; it’s brand differentiation.

Aligns California With International Standards

Europe’s DSA has already set the global precedent: vetted researchers deserve access. California has the opportunity to adapt and improve on that model for the AI era.

Helps Youth, Workers, and Vulnerable Populations

• Teens and young adults are already heavy users of AI for emotional exploration.

• Workers are interacting with AI systems that affect stress, evaluation, and job security.

• People in crisis may turn to AI tools before calling a hotline.

This law is built for the people who cannot self-advocate at committee hearings.

6. Stakeholder Endorsement Landscape

The following groups are natural supporters because they’ve lived through platform harms firsthand:

Labor

SEIU, Teamsters, CWA, CTA
Why they care: algorithmic management, burnout, opaque emotional manipulation in workplace tools.

Mental-Health Organizations

APA, CPA, NAMI-CA, AAP (California)
Why they care: evidence-based practice requires data access; clinicians are already seeing AI-mediated distress.

Civil Society

EFF, Center for Humane Technology, Data & Society, EPIC, AI Now
Why they care: transparency, accountability, research freedom, democratic oversight.

Parents & Youth Advocates

California PTA, Children Now, Common Sense Media
Why they care: teen safety, emotional dependency, misaligned AI behavior.

Creators & Digital Influencers

Tech explainers, mental-health creators, educators, journalists
Why they care: their audiences are already using AI for emotional guidance, without guardrails.

7. Messaging Framework

The Core Line

“If companies say their AI is safe, they have to let someone check.”

The Social-Media Lesson

“We trusted platforms when they promised safety. They hid their data. We cannot let AI companies repeat that mistake.”

The Emotional Frame

“AI is becoming the therapist, confidant, and late-night search companion for millions. Mental-health oversight is the bare minimum.”

The Business Frame

“Transparency is a competitive advantage. Good actors deserve incentives. Bad actors deserve scrutiny.”

The California Frame

“Every major tech era has started here. So has every major tech harm. This is our chance to write the rulebook before the damage scales.”

8. Action Items for Lawmakers, Creators, and Partner Organizations

For Lawmakers

• Commit to co-sponsoring or supporting the bill.

• Meet with academic partners ready to conduct external evaluations.

• Include the bill in public remarks about AI and digital safety.

For Mental-Health Experts

• Provide testimony.

• Offer anonymized clinical observations.

• Participate in data-access framework design.

For Creators & Influencers

• Attend the AI Mental-Health Symposium.

• Publish content explaining the need for research access.

• Sign a joint public letter urging the Legislature to act.

For Civil-Society Organizations

• Endorse the bill.

• Provide research and incident evidence.

• Assist in creating a vetted-researcher protocol.

9. Closing Statement

Artificial intelligence is not just another tool. It’s a psychological actor—one that can influence how people think about themselves, their problems, and their lives. California has the chance to prevent the next mass-scale mental-health crisis before it becomes irreversible.

This bill is simple:
Transparency for those who claim safety. Accountability for those who refuse. Protection for the people who live with the consequences.

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Let’s set the standard the rest of the country will follow.