House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 24, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1175480708 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1175480708#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-24/house-technology-and-infrastructure-innovation This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:24:27] Hey, good morning, everybody. [0:24:33] Before we get going, I would like to recognize, uh, Chairman Brian Prince. It's his birthday today. I've been told it's his 29th, so happy birthday, sir. 26th. 26th? Yes. So happy birthday, Chairman Prince. [0:24:50] Drinks on Brian. Happy hour. All right. Hey, uh, run a show. Uh, we're gonna do House Resolution 1670 first, and then we're gonna do Senate Bill 540 second. That should exhaust the agenda. And, uh, so what I'd like to do right now, um, Representative Adeyina, do you wanna just present from your seat? Yeah, I do. All right. The stage is yours. Thank you. Good morning, uh, all. Uh, Mr. Chair, this is LC number 610472, House Resolution 670. [0:25:26] Uh, again, a simple bill, uh, which encourages municipalities and counties to use a digital platform to f- share food. Uh, again, we all know hunger is a, a challenge in our, in our world today, and one of the ways to do that is, is by finding innovative ways to share food. Um, so I look for your favorable consideration. I know we've talked about this quite a bit, and I would like your support, uh, in moving this bill for- this resolution forward. [0:25:59] Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Representative. Uh, you have no questions or no comments. Uh, what's the will of the committee? Move to do pass. Second. I have a move do pass. I have a second on HR 1670, LC 610472. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like sign. Congratulations, sir. Thank you. [0:26:29] I believe this next bill will be just as fast. Oh, come on, a little funny. That was a little funny. All right. Uh, is the leader here yet? Should be here in just a moment. Is he up? He is up. We, m- we, we were trying to slow roll the, the, the resolution. Give me one second. Okay. Thank you. [0:26:57] Oh, Mr. Leader. Good to see you, sir. [0:27:10] You too, sir. If you can, just go ahead and give us the, uh, bill and the LC number, sir, and the floor is yours. Uh, let's see. The bill is SB 540, uh, LC number 560692S. Sounds good. And I mean, I, I don't have anything new. I'll just turn it back to you if you wanna walk through some of the, the changes and things that we've discussed, if you want to. It's completely up to you, sir. Yeah, go for it. Oh, okay. All right. Um, first and foremost, uh, just as a general statement, um, I'd like to thank the leader, the leader's office. [0:27:45] I'd also like to thank members of the majority and minority party, both in the Senate, uh, and in the House. Uh, this was, I'll just say, crowdsourced, if we're gonna be using a tech statement. Um, so I do appreciate everyone's, uh, diligence on this, especially I understood that, you know, obviously we were doing this over a weekend and, uh, over a weekend asking people to step away from their, I'll say, their family when we're this close to sine die. Uh, but here's what I'd like to do. Um, if you look at lines 16 through 35, one of the things you will notice is that we have converted from conversational AI to basically strictly a companion chatbot. [0:28:28] So we have defined this in a much stricter way. I appreciate the leader's willingness to do this, and it allows us to maintain a narrow, I'll say, interpretation of what is moving forward. Um, next, one of the things that I think is key, and my apologies, I've now looked at this so many times, uh, is... Hold on. Let me just get the line number for you. [0:28:54] If you go to line [0:28:59] 95 through line 104. [0:29:09] I know that many of you know I have a commitment to mental health, substance abuse, et cetera, so you will see that this requires the operator of the chatbot, uh, to basically maintain a protocol for detecting and addressing severe harm and related to emotional crisis. It also allows us on line 100 and 101 to basically ask the chatbot operator to refer individuals to 988. I think that's an important part of what we're doing here. [0:29:40] Um, you'll also see that we have... [0:29:48] And my apologies, I just don't know all the line numbers as fast as I should know them. [0:30:05] Mr. Gerard, I'm looking for the language where we wrote that we were looking more for systemic, I'll say, behavior rather than one-off behavior. And, and legislative council, I'll also phone a friend to you if you know the line number, please. [0:30:30] Compare it [0:30:35] now. Feature mode. [0:30:51] While leg- Legislative Council's looking for that, uh, please take a look at 132 through 141. [0:30:58] It's not there. [0:31:00] This effectively speaks to before allowing access to the feature or mode in terms of what can be generated and what commercially reasonable age assurance will be placed in. Uh, we add things like age estimation, account-based assurance, and iden- identity-based verification where necessary. This gives more tools in the toolbox versus what was in the original 540, and we thought by giving industry that opportunity, uh, it gives us a better chance of making sure that in fact from an age appropriate standpoint, who is a minor and who's not a minor, and basically the things that are permitted to the minor versus to an adult. [0:31:36] Other than that, I just... I didn't know, Mr. Gerrard, if you were able to find that. [0:31:40] Yeah, what are you referring to specifically? [0:31:43] We had placed in language, at least my- if my memory serves me right, as we were going through this weekend, that basically said effectively that we were looking more for systemic behavior versus a one-off. And the example I gave, I think on this bill or another bill was you're a great actor for three years, and then suddenly you slip one time. And again, that's not good, and I'm not suggesting it is good, but at the same time, the weight of the world shouldn't necessarily come down on the shoulders of either that startup or even if it was big tech. [0:32:16] It'd be line, right? [0:32:17] Big... Yeah. It should be. [0:32:20] Not arguing with you. It might be at the end. [0:32:30] We're talking about curing? [0:32:30] Are you talking about the cure period? [0:32:32] Yes. Yeah. [0:32:32] Okay, that should be at the, the line 151. [0:32:37] Yeah. Ah, there we go. Thank you. [0:32:38] Yes, sir. [0:32:39] So thank you, Mr. Gerrard. You win the million dollars. Uh, 151 to 154, um, the feeling amongst, I'll say, the broad bipartisan group this weekend was the first time vio- violation, and I stress first time, and you'll see that on 152, you should have an opportunity to cure. After that, then it's up to the attorney general on terms of what's going to occur. But in terms of the first time, and that goes back to the concern that I had, members of the committee, regarding a good actor for two, three years, and then finally there's one slip up. [0:33:15] And again, if you're systematic, I completely understand the need to take the hammer. On the other hand, if you've been great for 24 straight months and suddenly you slipped once, um, I think giving them a cure period I think is more than reasonable to industry. And then if they do it again, that's a d- completely different discussion, and then we have to have the enforcement issue. Other than that, um, and I'll ask the leader and also Mr. Gerrard, do you feel like I've missed anything substantive in terms of the change? [0:33:41] No, I don't think so. [0:33:42] Okay. With that stated, we do have a question, Mr. Leader. Chairman Parsons. [0:33:51] Thank, thank you, Chairman. Uh, to the leader or to the chairman, uh, I'm probably missing this, but in the origin- the bill we had the other day, as, as I recall, it, uh, specifically excluded the, any of the, uh, providers that have, um, uh, [0:34:11] the, uh, store, the, the, um- [0:34:15] The app stores? [0:34:16] Yeah. App s- app stores. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Uh, is that taken out of here, or I'm just, just not seeing it? [0:34:28] Page... [0:34:29] And the reason I ask- [0:34:29] Yeah [0:34:29] ... is not because I want them taken out. I just wanna make... I would like to... I mean, in my opinion, they're the, the culprits. But, uh... [0:34:40] So the app stores, the market, and in this case, since we have reduced it from conversational AI all the way down to just the chatbot- [0:34:48] Mm-hmm [0:34:48] ... is your concern that someone is going to, and again, I'm just asking the question, they're going to go to the App Store or the Play Store, given the two options we have today, we may have more options in the future, and then basically download a piece of software that has- [0:35:01] Yeah [0:35:01] ... a chatbot feature, and then that chatbot could basically be moved against the minor? [0:35:07] Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. [0:35:07] Well, your question, Mr. Chairman, goes beyond what I was trying to get to. [0:35:11] Oh, okay. Sorry. [0:35:12] Uh, I, I'm, I mean, a question really, and I don't know this, and I guess it would not be true. I know that there's, there's, uh, uh, Googles and so on, they s- they have the, uh, they have the App Store where people can b- you know, purchase the ops, the apps rather. Um, and, uh, but is that the only way you can get those? I mean, is that, is that the only way you can get one of these, uh, any of these kind of, uh, chatbots? [0:35:39] No, sir. [0:35:39] Okay. [0:35:39] No. You could ch- you... Hypothetically, you can go out to the web and basically interact the exact same way without ever going into one of the, call it, Play Stores or app stores. [0:35:50] Well, who... If you did that, if I may, I mean, I'm sorry, but if, if you did that- [0:35:53] Sure [0:35:53] ... then who would you actually be... Uh, who is providing that? Who is providing the opportunity to get that app? If, if you say just g- on the web, who would be... I mean, is it just- [0:36:03] Well, I don't wanna name brand names, but call it big tech or even startups. [0:36:06] Yeah. [0:36:07] And but I would like to re- direct you to lines 49 through 51 regarding parental controls in terms of what's required as it re- as it regards to a minor's use of a companion chatbot. Also, we have throughout the bill, even on s- page 58 through 61, and then again 61 through 65- In terms of conspicuously disclosing the user, uh, to the user that this is a chat bot, not a natural person, et cetera. So the combination of conspicuously disclosing also with the requirement of the parental controls and limiting it to chatbots, I believe we've hit your issue. [0:36:46] Maybe not with the exact same manner by which the original language did, but again, Mr. Leader, if you feel like you wanna add to my answer. [0:36:52] No, no, Chairman, I think the other, um, lines too, we could cite is 132 and beyond, just in terms of the generation of synthetic content, um, containing sexually explicit conduct. I mean, I think we're trying to get down to, um, the chatbot level and we're a little bit further than we are. I mean, we're beyond, you know, kind of the app and the app store. So we're- [0:37:15] Yeah [0:37:15] ... getting into basically the guts of- [0:37:18] Yeah [0:37:18] ... of the- [0:37:18] The operation [0:37:19] ... of the operation. [0:37:19] I mean, if I may follow up and this- [0:37:20] Of course, sir [0:37:21] ... maybe I, I'm trying to understand- [0:37:22] Totally [0:37:22] ... frankly, but- [0:37:23] Yeah [0:37:23] ... um, but you know, if you, if a store, I mean, if a store out here sells something that, uh, is illegal or causes harm to people, uh, what- whatever it would be, if they illegally sell, uh, fireworks or anything that, you know, they shouldn't be selling, then we hold that store responsible for it. And I just, I have a problem with not holding whoever's offering these things responsible for selling something that does harm to people. [0:37:50] Chairman Parsons, I think that's a laudable goal, but can I give you just a hypothetical? [0:37:54] Sure. [0:37:55] So hypothetically, I'm just gonna say big tech company A is on the App Store, it gets downloaded. Big tech company A is doing all the right things, so the App Store would have no idea that they're, they've done the wrong things. Suddenly, big tech company A changes its policies six months later. At that point then, the app has either been downloaded or purchased. I guess my point being is, at what point would we say to the App Store, "We are freeing you up of," I'll say, "liability"? It's really the operator, which is defined in here, who has become the bad actor, not necessarily the App Store, because I could walk out of... [0:38:31] And, and again, I don't mean to be bli- glib about this. I can walk out of a CVS with certain, uh, cough medicine and cold medicine truly for cough and cold, or I could walk out thinking I'm gonna be creating a, an illegal drug. Either way, I can't necessarily mark that against a drugstore for selling me it, 'cause I might be using it for a good reason or a bad reason. I think it's the same thing here with the App Store and the Play Store, sir. [0:38:54] Well, I mean, I'm sure you're correct. It, it seem, it seems different to me, though, because you're, these app stores are actually offering something. They're not saying... I, I mean, I don't know of any, and I'm maybe wrong, but I don't know of any apps that you could combine them together and create something worse than what the, the, the one app would be. [0:39:12] So theoretically, sir, and again, I'm not suggesting a startup's doing this or a big tech's doing this, but one software update that we all go ahead and update without reading the user agreement, every one of us is guilty of that, and before we know it, what was, I'll say, a product that is benign is no longer benign, but rather, I'll say, a sword versus a shield. And ag- and again, I can't fathom placing that back onto the two markets today, even though maybe one day we'll have a market that follows your purchase forever, but that's putting a significant amount of responsibility onto a store that sold a benign product to begin with. [0:39:47] Well, okay, I'll, I'll just say this. It just seems to me- [0:39:49] Sure [0:39:49] ... that we're... I know that in particular Google, uh, I've been to some of their conferences, but some of the others too, I mean, they have lobbied big time and they continue to lobby big time about taking any, uh, responsibility for what they sell in their app stores. And, uh, it just seems to me that they, that they should have some responsibility for it. But with that, that's all I have to say about it. [0:40:09] I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Is there anything that you'd like to follow up with, sir? [0:40:13] No. [0:40:14] Okay. Thank you. [0:40:18] Representative Tran. [0:40:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Leader, for your changes. Um, on page six, uh, around line 141, I've got some concerns about the, how clear it is about the retention of data, especially, um, when it involves minors. So I have a friendly amendment I'd like to suggest that, uh, my colleague Stacey Evans here, um, wrote and would hope that you will consider it. [0:40:52] Uh, we wrote together. "In no event shall the information be used for any purpose other than age verification, and in no event shall the info be retained longer than 24 hours." [0:41:09] May I comment on that, Mr. Leader? Rep- Re- Representative Evans, I'm gonna open up your mic, okay? [0:41:18] At least from my position, and I don't wanna speak for the leader, my, my only concern, can you change the 24 hours to require by law? Because I don't know what necessarily in terms of if the law requires from a, say, a federal standpoint, if an age verification is done, and maybe there's a law that occurs two years from now that requires a 48-hour retention of that age verification data. In other words, my point is, is, w- is it weaker by just saying require by law? Or how about this? Whichever one's longer, 24 hours or require by law? [0:41:50] Whichever one's – I think that. [0:41:51] Is that fair? Okay, what I'll let the leader- [0:41:54] Yeah, that's fine. [0:41:55] Are you okay with that, Mr. Leader? [0:41:56] Yeah, totally. [0:41:56] Can you, for the purposes of all of us and for lead counsel, can you say that one more time, please? And, and say where you're gonna insert it. Representative Tran. [0:42:05] Right at the end of line 141. "In no event shall the information be used for any purpose other than age verification, and in no event shall the information be retained longer than 24 hours or as required by law." [0:42:22] Of no- [0:42:22] Or whichever is- [0:42:26] Whichever is shorter. [0:42:26] I'm concerned if the law becomes a federal law, will be a supremacy, we'd have to do longer. [0:42:31] Whichever. [0:42:32] Whichever is longer. [0:42:33] Whichever is longer [0:42:38] Leg counsel, are we- [0:42:40] If I can throw a little part, a little verbal just sort of in case there is no other law, I don't want it to be, well, whichever is longer is never. So, um, shall be retained longer than 24 hours or a, or another spec- or another time as specified by law, whichever is longer, if specified by law. [0:43:04] I think if specified by law. [0:43:07] Yeah. Or a specs- or another specified time if required by law, whichever is longer. [0:43:17] I think that's good. [0:43:19] Yeah, that... Okay. [0:43:21] Now people are gonna be able to have proof that I was admitted to the bar, and that's not a good thing, Representative Evans. Um, Mr. Leader, are you okay with that friendly amendment? [0:43:29] That's fine. [0:43:29] So at the proper time, I'm gonna ask you to make that, okay? [0:43:36] Mr. Leader, you have no other questions? You have no other... Oh, wait. I apologize. Representative Evans? [0:43:41] I had one quick, um, proposed amendment that I wanted to see how the author felt about, which is on page four, and it would be to add an additional, um, s- subsection, um, between the current number eight and number nine, um, about what we don't want these chatbots to be saying to minors, and that would be to insert a new subsection nine and then renumber the current nine to 10, and it would be, um, to state, "Generating statements encouraging self-harm," so that the chatbots aren't doing that. [0:44:14] I think we heard testimony at the last, um, hearing that that was happening. [0:44:25] Represen- would you say it one more time, please? [0:44:27] Um, to insert a new subsection nine and then renumber the current nine to 10 between lines 84 and 85, and it would say, "Generating statements encouraging self-harm." [0:44:39] And then, not to sound like judiciary, we will take the or after eight and put it after the new nine, correct? [0:44:47] Exactly, yes. [0:44:47] Okay. [0:44:48] Thank you. Now you really are outing yourself, isn't it? [0:44:50] I am. [0:44:52] No doubt. [0:44:54] Mr. Leader? [0:44:55] I think that's fine. [0:44:56] Okay. All right. [0:45:00] We're not lit up like a Christmas tree anymore, um, so what is the will of the committee? [0:45:06] Do pass. [0:45:06] I got a do pass. Do I have a second? [0:45:07] Second. [0:45:08] I have a second. Uh, let's go ahead and before we do discussion... Oh, I'm sorry, Chairman Prince, you want to- [0:45:14] No, no. [0:45:15] Oh, okay. Um, I'd like to do... There's gonna be, I believe, two separate amendments, I think is the better way to do this than just one full one. So Representative Tran, I'm gonna recognize you for your amendment, please. [0:45:27] To amend on page six, line four, 141, to the language that was presented, um, to us. Do I need to read the language again? [0:45:39] Um, for the sake of the committee, is the committee okay with that language, or do you need it read again by leg counsel? I think we're good. Uh, I have a motion. Do I have a second? [0:45:49] Second. [0:45:50] Any discussion? All in favor say aye. [0:45:54] Aye. [0:45:54] All opposed, like sign. Okay, amendment one is on. Representative Evans, I'm gonna recognize you for amendment two, please. [0:46:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the amendment would be to add, um, between the semicolon and or on line 84, a new subsection nine that would read, "Generating statements encouraging self-harm," and that would leave the or and then renumber nine to 10. [0:46:23] Any questions to Representative Evans? Mr. Leader, are you acceptable to that as a friendly? [0:46:29] Yep. [0:46:29] Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? [0:46:32] Second. [0:46:33] Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. [0:46:37] Aye. [0:46:37] All opposed, like sign. It's on. Last one, and I'm not sure if we need it or not. Leg counsel? Sir, on line six, does conversational AI services have to be changed to chatbot? [0:46:56] Yes? Okay, that's what I thought. So what I'd like to suggest, unless you have better wording, sir, is on line six to require o- operators to adopt a protocol for, I'm gonna use the exact words, for AI companion chatbot, chatbots possessive response to suicidal i- ideation and self-harm. Is that correct? [0:47:19] That works. [0:47:20] Okay. I'll make that motion. Is there a second? [0:47:25] Second. [0:47:26] Okay, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. [0:47:30] Aye. [0:47:30] All opposed, like sign. All right, that's on, amendment three. Mr. Leader, do you have any final comments before I call the question? [0:47:38] Just real quick on your, on your last amendment, which line were you referring to? [0:47:41] Oh, I'm so sorry, sir. [0:47:42] Page six or line six? [0:47:43] No, I'm sorry. Line six, to require operators to adopt a protocol for- [0:47:48] Got it. I got it [0:47:48] ... AI companion chatbots possessive response. [0:47:52] Got it. [0:47:52] Okay. [0:47:54] Thank you. [0:47:54] You're welcome. All right, I have a motion on the overall bill, and then I'm gonna basically say that we have three amendments on, so we're gonna say Senate Bill 540, LC560692S as amended. All in favor say aye. [0:48:11] Aye. [0:48:11] All opposed, like sign. Mr. Leader, you're on to rules, sir. [0:48:15] Thank you. [0:48:15] And we're adjourned. [0:48:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.