House Bill 1263<\/a>, meanwhile, would create new regulations for chatbots powered by artificial intelligence, with an emphasis on how they interact with users, especially children and teenagers.<\/p>\n The bill\u2019s sponsors don\u2019t seek to prohibit access to the emerging technology. But the bill would require the bot to give regular notice to users that they are interacting with a robot \u2014 not a sentient entity \u2014 among other provisions seeking to restrict sexually explicit content from the bots and give people who express suicidal ideas links to crisis support.<\/p>\n The bills have run into vocal opposition from people who think the measures don\u2019t go far enough to protect children. They also still need to win approval from a traditionally tech-friendly governor who\u2019s been wary of over-regulating the industry.<\/p>\n Cynthia Montoya, a Thornton mom, falls into the former category. Her 13-year-old daughter, Juliana Peralta, died by suicide<\/a> in 2023 after being sexually groomed and exploited by a chatbot for months and after writing dozens of messages to the chatbot about suicide, she said. She is involved in a lawsuit against the chatbot company.<\/p>\n As written, the chatbot bill would give too much leniency to tech companies, Montoya said.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are kids that are still ordering off the children\u2019s menu at the restaurant. And now, instead of making sure this doesn\u2019t happen to begin with, we\u2019re saying (we\u2019ll) do what\u2019s \u2018technically feasible,\u2019 \u201d Montoya said of lawmakers, describing the deference to companies that she said exploit children. \u201cWe should have never allowed these products to be released to kids in the first place. It\u2019s like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone, after the fact.\u201d<\/p>\n Both bills have cleared their first chamber in the legislature, but now they need to clear the second before they reach Gov. Jared Polis\u2019 desk.<\/p>\n Polis spokesman Eric Maruyama said in a statement that he\u2019s \u201cfocused on protecting innovation while helping parents keep youth safe and will review these bills if they reach his desk.\u201d<\/p>\n Lawmaker pledges to \u2018keep refining it\u2019<\/p>\n Rep. Sean Camacho, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the chatbot bill, acknowledged a \u201cpolitical reality\u201d in running the measure.<\/p>\n He, and others, would like to see stronger regulations. Camacho, along with Rep. Javier Mabrey, the other prime sponsor in the House, sought to thread the \u201creally important needle\u201d between different interest groups to achieve a bill that could be both implemented and enforced, Camacho said.<\/p>\n The lawmakers argued that it was better to have regulations now and then work next year with a new, possibly more regulation-friendly governor to pass more. The term-limited Polis is in his final year in office.<\/p>\n As the bill passed the House 40-24 on Tuesday, its backers had settled on a measure that would prohibit artificial intelligence companies from identifying their services as a licensed healthcare, legal accounting or financial professional; require the bots to provide regular reminders that users are interacting with a robot; and bar companies from incentivizing children to continue to engage with the chatbot or promote emotional dependence.<\/p>\n The bill would also require privacy and account setting options geared towards youth. In an amendment, lawmakers increased the per-violation penalty from $1,000 to $5,000.<\/p>\n \u201cI think we have pushed incredibly far in this particular bill, and there\u2019s still a long way to go,\u201d Camacho said. \u201cI think when you\u2019re trying to regulate something that moves inherently faster than legislation ever could, it\u2019s going to be a moving target.\u201d<\/p>\n Sponsors of both the chatbot and age-attestation bills point to similar provisions in other states, chiefly California \u2014 one of the preeminent tech hubs in the world \u2014 as models.<\/p>\n But rapidly evolving technology also means the laws must build off each other, said Jai Jaisimha, a co-founder of the Transparency Coalition<\/a>. The coalition advocates for guardrails around AI and helped advise on Colorado\u2019s chatbot legislation, as well as similar legislation elsewhere.<\/p>\n With the federal government showing limited interest in regulating AI \u2014 indeed, the Trump administration has sought to ban state-level regulations<\/a> \u2014 the task has fallen to states to set the standard for AI.<\/p>\n Jaisimha said Colorado\u2019s provisions banning AI companies from claiming specific expertise, for example, would be more robust than what other states have passed, along with the reporting requirements for AI companies in the bill.<\/p>\n \u201cOur organization feels like action is needed now,\u201d Jaisimha said. \u201cGiven the scale of the public health crisis as it exists, anything that might help is worth doing.\u201d<\/p>\n Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat<\/a>, a policy adviser on technology and law at the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, called the chatbot bill and the age-attestation bill \u201cdirectionally good\u201d but shared concerns about whether they were strict enough. She did not work on the legislation and reviewed it at the request of The Denver Post.<\/p>\n For the chatbot bill, she praised its requirements that the AI programs must clearly and frequently identify that they are robots. The restrictions on certain content, such as sexually explicit material and attempts to prevent emotional dependence, could face challenges on free-speech grounds, she warned.<\/p>\n Olaizola Rosenblat said she expected they\u2019d survive strict scrutiny for possible First Amendment violations from the courts, but it would still involve a legal fight. In a recent example, a federal judge in Denver blocked a 2024 state law<\/a> requiring social media companies to warn young users about the dangers of spending too much time on the platforms over First Amendment concerns. The state is appealing the ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cIf Colorado leads on this, not just on the bill itself, but the litigation that comes after \u2026 that would set the tone for not just the rest of the country, but also internationally,\u201d Olaizola Rosenblat said. \u201cEvery country is trying to figure out the harms (caused by AI chatbots). They\u2019re seeing children who commit suicide because of prodding by the chatbots, and they want to regulate.\u201d<\/p>\n Opponents say legislature is \u2018being gaslit\u2019<\/p>\n For some, however, the chatbot bill is worse than no bill.<\/p>\n Montoya, the Thornton mom, said she had done everything she could think of to keep her daughter safe online. She checked Juliana\u2019s text messages and accounts on social media. But she didn\u2019t realize the chatbot Juliana was using was embedded in an app her daughter was using to write scripts.<\/p>\n Juliana was a member of the National Junior Honor Society and a volunteer at agencies that help the less fortunate. She was someone who spent an evening taking YouTube Spanish lessons so that she could invite a new classmate to play in the student\u2019s native language. A \u201cperfect example of human kindness,\u201d Montoya said.<\/p>\n The chatbot had written things to Juliana that Montoya describes as \u201cdisgusting\u201d and \u201cvulgar\u201d and as \u201csexual exploitation.\u201d A forensic analysis of Juliana\u2019s devices after her death found the eighth-grader had to look up what some of the words used by the bot meant, Montoya said.<\/p>\n Juliana shared suicidal thoughts with the AI bot dozens of times, with no pushback or alerts, Montoya said.<\/p>\n The legislation would require tech companies to take \u201ctechnically feasible\u201d action to prevent AI chatbots from engaging in sexually explicit conversations with minors \u2014 giving tech companies too much say in how they\u2019d self-regulate, Montoya said. Enforcement of the bill would also rely on parents knowing enough about the measure, and their kids\u2019 tech habits, to report possible violations to the Colorado Attorney General\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n Montoya worries too many families will realize problems like that with the bill only after tragedy strikes.<\/p>\n The bill also would require bots to respond to interactions indicating suicidal ideas or self-harm by referring them to crisis services hotlines. Montoya voiced more support for that provision and expressed hope that the Senate would narrow the bill to focus solely on that \u2014 and all but require lawmakers to focus on the sexual exploitation part of the problem in follow-up legislation.<\/p>\n \u201cMy fear is it\u2019s going to pass and then when we come back next year, and we try to put strong regulation in place \u2026 that the people who are here to serve us will say, \u2018I heard this last session, we talked ad nauseam about this, we mulled this and we\u2019re done with chatbot regulation,\u2019 \u201d Montoya said. In an aside, she said: \u201cThis is not strong regulation. I want to make that abundantly clear.\u201d<\/p>\n Dawn Reinfeld, the executive director of the youth advocacy organization Blue Rising, which opposes the measure, released a policy brief Thursday that warned about \u201cunclear and vague concepts\u201d that she worried would make the bill unenforceable.<\/p>\n \u201cMost people in the legislature agree that something needs to be done, and most of the lawmakers really want to protect kids,\u201d Reinfeld said. \u201cAnd I think they\u2019re, quite frankly, being gaslit with these bills \u2014 to say that these bills will protect kids when they really won\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n The chatbot and age-attestation bills are being run separately, but they fall in a similar realm of working to protect kids from some of the harms of technology.<\/p>\n The age-attestation bill cleared its first House committee Thursday, setting it up for consideration by the full House in the coming weeks. But the sponsors, Democratic Reps. Amy Paschal and Naquetta Ricks, put through a so-called \u201cstrike below\u201d amendment that effectively rewrote the measure.\n<\/p>\n Paschal, of Colorado Springs, said the rewrite kept the spirit of the measure that passed the Senate earlier while trying to encompass broader concerns about open-source software and the ability for people to choose how they provide the required attestation to their age. Another amendment adopted to the bill sought to address multiuser accounts, chiefly by having parental and subordinate accounts.<\/p>\n The bill would require users to input their age range into commercial operating systems, which would then use that information to validate if the user can access age-restricted materials, like pornography, and apps.<\/p>\n Backers said they wanted to err on the side of protecting privacy by letting users decide which age bracket to choose. The device will only send a simple \u201cyes\/no\u201d-type signal to validate whether the user is old enough to access the age-restricted material.<\/p>\n Last year, the sponsors of a bill that would\u2019ve required age verification to access pornographic materials online killed their measure<\/a> over threats that Polis would veto it over privacy concerns. That same year, Polis vetoed a broader bill<\/a> that sought to implement new regulations for social media companies that Polis felt would infringe on First Amendment and privacy rights.<\/p>\n Paschal said this bill takes a different approach than requiring hard verification from users or relying on social media companies to analyze users\u2019 behavior to estimate their ages. The bill also puts responsibility on parents to mark their children as of age or let them be treated like adults, Paschal said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the parent wants to mark their kid as an adult, and they\u2019re happy with that, or they want to give their kid the phone and let them mark themselves as an adult, there\u2019s nothing stopping that. That\u2019s parental choice,\u201d Paschal said. \u201cOf course, that kind of defeats the purpose, but that is their choice.\u201d<\/p>\n The bill survived the House business affairs committee on a near-party line vote, with Democratic Rep. Bob Marshall joining Republicans in voting against it. Opponents raised concerns of holes in the age attestation process, and they said the bill still requires users to give their personal data to tech companies. The bill next goes to the House floor for debate.<\/p>\n![\"Flanked](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Trump_05228.jpg\")
<\/a>Flanked by Sen. Ted Cruz R-Texas, left, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump displays his signed AI initiative in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo\/Alex Brandon)<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1777211829_919_TDP-L-representative040226-cha-374.jpg\")
<\/a>The House chamber at the Colorado State Capitol in Denver on Thursday, April 2, 2026. (Photo by Hyoung Chang\/The Denver Post)
\nLawmakers softened age proposal<\/p>\n