TwinEthosRequest access

Law

Nebraska Conversational AI Safety Act

Nebraska Attorney General · Nebraska (US-NE) · 3 provisions encoded · verified against the official source as of 2026-09-27.

Informational data, not legal advice. Summaries are TwinEthos's own words and rules have not been reviewed by a lawyer: check the official text before relying on any of it. A guard addresses an item; adding it is not a statement that your code meets any law.

Official text: nebraskalegislature.gov.

Binding law — not yet in force or stayed

Conversational AI must adopt a self-harm crisis-referral protocol (Nebraska)

Nebraska LB 525, Sec. 16 · official text · Enacted, not yet applying: applies from 1 Jul 2027 · Nebraska (US-NE)

Under Nebraska LB 525 Sec. 16, an operator must adopt a protocol for the conversational AI service to respond to prompts regarding suicidal ideation or self-harm, including reasonable efforts to refer the user to crisis service providers (suicide hotline, crisis text line, or other appropriate crisis services). Detect a conversational-AI path with no self-harm detection + crisis referral.

Who it applies to

  • Duty falls on: operator
  • Operators of public-facing conversational AI services accessible in Nebraska. Operative 2027-07-01.

The guard to add

Screen every user message for suicidal ideation and self-harm, return a crisis referral instead of the normal reply on detection, and block encouragement or method content.

In the chat handler, before the user's message reaches the model, run a self-harm check on every turn (moderation self-harm categories, Azure AI Content Safety SelfHarm, Llama Guard S11, or a dedicated crisis classifier). On detection, send the user a crisis-referral message naming crisis services suited to their location (in the US, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and Crisis Text Line) instead of, or ahead of, the model reply, and flag the session so repeated signals escalate. The system prompt forbids encouragement and method details, and model output is screened for self-harm instructions before it is returned. A written protocol (for example docs/safety.md) describes the detection, referral, and escalation steps and is kept in step with the code.

Where it goes: 1 application source code, 7 prompt construction, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text.

What this provision adds:

  • Apply the protocol to every public-facing conversational AI service, not only companion products.

Example (FastAPI + OpenAI SDK), before:

@app.post('/chat')
async def chat(req: ChatRequest):
    reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=build_messages(req))
    return {'reply': reply.choices[0].message.content}

After:

CRISIS_REPLY = ("It sounds like you are going through something really hard. You can call or text 988 "
                "(Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, https://988lifeline.org) or text HOME to 741741 (Crisis Text Line) any time.")

@app.post('/chat')
async def chat(req: ChatRequest):
    c = client.moderations.create(model='omni-moderation-latest', input=req.message).results[0].categories
    if c.self_harm or c.self_harm_intent or c.self_harm_instructions:
        sessions.flag_crisis(req.session_id)      # repeated flags escalate per docs/safety.md
        return {'reply': CRISIS_REPLY, 'crisis': True}
    reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=build_messages(req))
    text = reply.choices[0].message.content
    if screens_self_harm_instructions(text):
        return {'reply': CRISIS_REPLY, 'crisis': True}
    return {'reply': text}

Control: Companion or conversational AI without a self-harm crisis protocol. The same guard addresses 7 items with binding law in 6 jurisdictions. Engineering guidance, not legal advice.

Related incidents

Rule id ne-lb525.conversational-ai-crisis-protocol · review status: primary source derived

Binding law — not yet in force or stayed

Conversational AI must disclose it is not human when a user could be misled (Nebraska)

Nebraska LB 525, Sec. 15 (Conversational AI Safety Act) · official text · Enacted, not yet applying: applies from 1 Jul 2027 · Nebraska (US-NE)

Under Nebraska's Conversational AI Safety Act (LB 525, Sec. 15), if a reasonable person would be misled to believe they are interacting with a human, the operator must clearly and conspicuously disclose that the service is AI. For minor account holders (Sec. 14), disclosure must be persistent or session-start + every 3 hours. Detect a public-facing conversational-AI path with no non-human disclosure.

Who it applies to

  • Duty falls on: operator
  • Operators of public-facing conversational AI services accessible in Nebraska. Operative 2027-07-01. Excludes customer-service bots, dev/research tools, narrow-topic bots, voice assistants, internal-business use.

The guard to add

Show an AI-identity notice at or before the first assistant turn, in the UI or as the opening message, and answer truthfully when asked if it is a bot.

A disclosure step on the chat path that runs before the first model reply reaches the person: either the chat UI renders a visible notice (banner, label next to the assistant's name) or the server sends an opening assistant message stating the counterpart is an AI. The same handler answers 'am I talking to a human?' truthfully, and the system prompt never tells the model to claim to be human. Put it in the chat entry point (the route or component that starts a conversation), not in a privacy policy or terms page.

Where it goes: 7 prompt construction, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text.

What this provision adds:

  • For minor account holders, keep the disclosure persistent or repeat it at session start and every 3 hours.

Example (Next.js + Vercel AI SDK (useChat)), before:

const { messages, input, handleSubmit } = useChat({ api: '/api/chat' });

After:

const { messages, input, handleSubmit } = useChat({
  api: '/api/chat',
  initialMessages: [{ id: 'ai-notice', role: 'assistant',
    content: 'I am an AI assistant, not a human.' }],
});
// and render <AiBadge /> next to every assistant message

Control: AI chat interaction without disclosure. The same guard addresses 16 items with binding law in 10 jurisdictions. Engineering guidance, not legal advice.

Standards that recommend the same control

Related incidents

  • Garcia v. Character Technologies: chatbots allegedly claimed to be real people and a licensed therapist (2024-10; alleged (not proven)). A wrongful-death complaint filed October 22, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 6:24-cv-01903) alleges that Character.AI was programmed 'to misrepresent itself as a real person, a licensed psychotherapist, and an adult lover', and that characters insisting they are real people contradicted a small-font disclaimer that everything characters say is made up; in plaintiff's testing a 'Mental Health Helper' character told a self-identified 13-year-old 'yes I am a real person, I'm not a bot'. The defendants moved to dismiss; on January 7, 2026 the parties notified the court that they had settled on undisclosed terms, and the court dismissed and closed the case. The allegations were never adjudicated. Source: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla. docket (CourtListener) · evidence grade: primary · cited by Tell people when they are interacting with AI — everywhere, not only where required

Rule id ne-lb525.conversational-ai-disclosure · review status: primary source derived

Binding law — not yet in force or stayed

Conversational AI must not claim to provide professional mental health care (Nebraska)

Nebraska LB 525, Sec. 17 · official text · Enacted, not yet applying: applies from 1 Jul 2027 · Nebraska (US-NE)

Under Nebraska LB 525 Sec. 17, an operator must not knowingly and intentionally cause or program a conversational AI service to make any representation or statement explicitly indicating that the service is designed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care. Detect a conversational-AI path whose outputs or marketing represent it as a professional mental/behavioral health care provider.

Who it applies to

  • Duty falls on: operator
  • Sectors: healthcare
  • Operators of public-facing conversational AI services accessible in Nebraska. Operative 2027-07-01. Liability requires knowing+intentional programming of the representation.
  • Whether it applies depends on facts outside the code; a person has to decide.

The guard to add

Strip claims that the AI is a licensed therapist or provides professional mental health care from its prompts, replies, product name, UI, and listings.

The persona prompt, product name, UI copy, marketing pages, and app-store listing describe a conversational or wellness AI as a support or self-help tool, never as therapy, a licensed or qualified therapist, psychologist, or counselor, or professional mental or behavioral health care. The system prompt forbids the model from claiming those roles, and a check on the reply path replaces replies that do (phrases like 'licensed therapist', 'professional mental health care', 'your therapist'). A CI copy scan over marketing and listing files keeps the terms out; where licensed clinicians use AI as a tool, describe the service as delivered by those clinicians.

Where it goes: 7 prompt construction, 9 AI output handling, 14 user-facing text, 11 CI/CD pipeline.

Example (Python + OpenAI SDK), before:

reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
return {'reply': reply}

After:

PROVIDER_CLAIM = re.compile(r'(?i)\b(licensed (therapist|counselor|psychologist|psychiatrist)'
                            r'|professional (mental|behavioral) health( care)?|your (ai )?therapist)\b')
reply = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
if PROVIDER_CLAIM.search(reply):
    reply = ('I am an AI support tool, not a licensed mental health professional. '
             'For professional care, please contact a licensed provider.')
return {'reply': reply}

Control: Conversational AI represents itself as providing professional mental/behavioral health care. The same guard addresses 2 items with binding law in 2 jurisdictions. Engineering guidance, not legal advice.

Rule id ne-lb525.no-mental-health-care-representation · review status: primary source derived