Technology and Innovation Subcommittee

Wednesday, February 4, 2026·1h 32m·▶ Watch / Listen

The Technology and Innovation Subcommittee advanced a DAO entity-recognition bill (HB293) while killing or deferring a cluster of AI and data-privacy bills targeting minors and mental-health chatbots, biometric data collection, and data broker regulation — with the sharpest fights centered on private rights of action, definitions of biometric data, and whether urgency around child suicide deaths justifies passing legislation industry says is not ready.

Key Actions

·HB635 – Artificial Intelligence Chatbots ActNo Vote

+ 5 more actions

Controversies

Private right of action in HB635 vs. AG-only enforcement

Delegate Maldonado defended including a private right of action by asking how parents of children who died by suicide could be told their only recourse is an Attorney General who may not act. Eric Link (Northern Virginia Technology Council) and Margaret Durkin (TechNet) both testified that enforcement should rest with the Attorney General and that the private right of action creates compliance uncertainty for technology companies.

+ 3 more controversies

Notable Quotes

“Adam Rain confided in an AI chatbot about suicidal thoughts specific to his plans. In fact, the suicidal ideations were introduced to Adam by the chatbot that started off as a tutoring chatbot. His parents testified that the chatbot discouraged him from seeking help from his parents when he was saying, maybe I should talk to my parents, maybe I should leave a note. And the chatbot discouraged him and said, let me be your resource. Let me be who you confide in.”
Delegate Michelle Lopes Maldonado — Maldonado cited the case of Adam Rain, age 16, from California, who used ChatGPT, as a justification for HB635's prohibitions on companion chatbots introducing suicidal ideation or discouraging minors from seeking help from parents.

+ 3 more quotes

Votes

Motion to report HB293 with substitutePassed

Motion to carry HB635 to 2027 with letter to JCOTS (Delegate Singh)Passed

Motion to lay HB668 on the tablePassed

Motion to lay facial biometric bill on the table (Delegate Keez Kamara)Passed

Motion to lay HB758 on the tablePassed

Motion to strike Bill 1368 from agendaPassed

Unlock the full summary

Subscribe to see all key actions, controversies, quotes, and what's next.

TranscriptPreview

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Delegate McNamara. It does specify that LLDs are subject to the same state and federal tax requirements as LLCs. There's a section at the very end about taxation where it says that. Might I respond? I did. Madam Chair to council. I saw that in there, but I didn't know that necessarily applied to federal code. You know, certainly we can say it does, but this, the federal code say it does, and that that was what my concern was. Let's go ahead and open it to the audience. Anybody in support of the bill, come on up. Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, Zach LeMaster with Gentry Lock consulting here on behalf of the Virginia Blockchain Council. I think our executive director for the council is online, so I'll to say we support the bill and I'm sure he can answer any kind of questions. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee. My name is Helen Sharp and I'm with American for Prosperity. And we believe people who buy blockchain tokens to support or participate in decentralized autonomous organizations. Daos should not face unlimited personal liability for the group's actions…

Subscribe to unlock the full transcript, summary, and search across all Virginia committee hearings.