The GUARD Act Isn’t Targeting Dangerous AI—It’s Blocking Everyday Internet Use
from the it's-another-surveillance-bill dept
Lawmakers in Congress are moving quickly on the GUARD Act, an age-gating bill restricting minors’ access to a wide range of online tools, with a key vote expected this week. The proposal is framed as a response to alarming cases involving “AI companions” and vulnerable young users. But the text of the bill goes much further, and could require age gates even for search engines that use AI.
If enacted, the GUARD Act won’t just target a narrow category of risky chatbots. It would require companies to verify the age of every user — then block anyone under 18 from interacting with a huge range of online systems. It would block minors from everyday online tools, undermine parental guidance, and force adults to sacrifice their privacy. In the process, it would require services to implement speech-restricting and privacy-invasive age-verification systems for everyone—not just kids.
Under the GUARD Act’s broad definitions, a high school student could be barred from asking homework help tools questions about algebra problems. A teenager trying to return a product could be kicked out of a standard customer-service chat.
The concerns behind this bill are serious. There have been troubling reports of AI systems engaging in harmful interactions with young users, including cases involving self-harm. Those risks deserve attention. But they call for targeted solutions, like better safeguards and enforcement against bad actors, not sweeping restrictions. The bill’s sponsors say they’re targeting worst-case scenarios — but the bill regulates everyday use.
The GUARD Act’s Broad Definitions Reach Everyday Tools
The problem starts with how the bill defines an “AI chatbot.” It covers any system that generates responses that aren’t fully pre-written by the developer or operator. Such a broad definition sweeps in the basic functionality of all AI-powered tools.
Then there’s the definition of an “AI companion,” which minors are banned from using entirely. An AI companion is any chatbot that produces human-like responses and is designed to “encourage or facilitate” interpersonal or emotional interaction. That may sound aimed at simulated “friends” or therapy chatbots. But in practice, it’s much fuzzier.
Modern chatbots are designed to be conversational and helpful. A homework helper might say “good question” before walking a student through a problem. A customer service chatbot may respond empathetically to a complaint (“I’m sorry you’re having this problem.”) A general-purpose assistant might ask follow-up questions. All of these could be seen as facilitating “interpersonal” interaction — and triggering the GUARD Act.
Faced with steep penalties and unclear boundaries, companies are unlikely to take chances on letting young people use their online tools. They’ll block minors entirely or strip their tools down to something less useful for everyone. The result isn’t a narrow safeguard—it’s a broad restriction on everyday online interactions.
Homework Question? Show ID And Call Your Parents
Start with a student getting help with homework. Under the GUARD Act, the service must verify the user’s age using more than a simple checkbox—it must rely on a “reasonable age verification” measure, which could require a government ID or a third-party age-checking system. If the system decides a user is under 18, the company must decide if its tool qualifies as an “AI Companion.” If there’s any risk it does, the safest move is to block access entirely.
The same logic applies to everyday customer service. A teenager trying to fix an order issue gets routed to a chatbot, and the company faces a choice: build a full age-verification system for a routine interaction, or restrict access to avoid liability. Many will choose the latter.
This isn’t a narrow restriction aimed at a few risky products. It’s a compliance regime that pushes companies to block or limit any product that generates text for minors, across the board.
ID Checks for Everyone
The GUARD Act doesn’t just affect minors. The bill takes a big step towards an internet that only works when users are willing to upload a valid ID or comply with other invasive age-verification schemes. Companies must verify the age of every user—not through a simple self-declaration, but through a “reasonable age verification” system tied to the individual.
In practice, that means collecting sensitive personal information: government IDs, financial data, or biometric identifiers. Companies can outsource verification, but they remain legally responsible. And the law requires ongoing verification, so this isn’t a one-time check. Worse, studies consistently show that millions of people have outdated information on their IDs, such as an old address, or do not have government ID. Should services require ID, many folks without current or any ID will be shut out.
And for those who do have compliant ID, turning over this information repeatedly creates obvious risks. Databases of sensitive identity information become targets for breaches. Anonymous or pseudonymous use of online tools becomes harder or impossible.
To keep minors away from certain chatbots, the GUARD Act would require everyone to prove who they are just to use basic online tools. That’s a steep tradeoff. And it doesn’t actually address the specific harms the bill is supposed to solve.
Vague Definitions, Huge Penalties
The GUARD Act’s broad scope is enforced with steep penalties. Companies can face fines of up to $100,000 per violation, enforced by federal and state officials. At the same time, key terms like “AI companion” rely on vague concepts such as “emotional interaction.” That combination will lead to overblocking. Faced with legal uncertainty and serious liability, companies won’t parse small distinctions. They’ll restrict access, limit features, or block minors entirely.
That is the unfortunate result of the GUARD Act, even though the concerns animating it are worthy of fixing. But the GUARD Act’s broad terms will apply far beyond the concerning scenarios.
In the end, that means a more restricted and more surveilled internet. Teenagers would lose access to tools they rely on for school and everyday tasks. Everyone else faces new barriers, including ID checks. Smaller developers, who aren’t able to absorb compliance costs and legal risk, would be pushed out, leaving the largest companies even more dominant.
Young people — and all people — deserve protection from genuinely harmful products. But this bill doesn’t do that. It trades away privacy, access, and useful technology in exchange for a blunt system that misses the mark.
Congress could act soon. Tell them to reject the GUARD Act.
Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.
Filed Under: age verification, ai, ai chatbots, chatbots, guard act, surveillance


Comments on “The GUARD Act Isn’t Targeting Dangerous AI—It’s Blocking Everyday Internet Use”
It has bipartisan support though, and this site knows Democrats can ever be wrong.
So it’s fine.
Re:
Huh? This site criticizes Democrats all the time. I generally think Democrats are dreadful on tech policy and regularly criticize basically every Democrat. Biden, Harris, Newsom, Obama, have all been horrible on the policies we think are important.
It’s not that he GOP has been any better. But also, the GOP has embraced lawless authoritarian fascism, which is a higher priority right now.
I’d love to go back to a world in which we could just bitch about bad tech policy proposals from both Dems and Republicans. That would be nice.
Re: Re:
Strawman spambots like that one aren’t known for displaying nuance.
Good cause, bad arguments
The key issue I have with your argument is that your examples highlight failings we need to address, not things we should subject teenagers to.
If students don’t have access to tools that are tools rather than “friends”, then we have deeply failed our students. Homework helping tools should not be emotional support or friendly. They should be direct and focused. Calculators, search engines and indexes, not characters.
Chatbots in customer service are a scourge we need to get rid of, not one we should write our laws to accomodate. They exist to keep you trappes and walking in circles instead of just doing the thing you’re trying to do in the first place.
Re:
I support the multitude of laws that basically force companies to have actual, real, customer support.
No, the “key issue” here is that Congress has no fundamental legal authority to legislate in this area, at all.
OnceUponaTime Americans knew that our humble public servants in the Federal government did not have unlimited power to command us at their whim.
I’m curious what EFF thinks those should actually look like. Especially as larger actors like Meta or OpenAI test the waters with this stuff.
It’s not really the main point, but to be honest making them give less human-like responses in general might not be a bad thing. You do get that weird simulacrum effect even in normal chatbots, not just in the companion type stuff.
i propose a more simple and equitable age-gating system: Anyone under twenty thousand years old doesn’t get to play with the AI.
Feature not a bug…
It is so frustrating seeing all the laws popping up that threaten to destroy online anonimity, participation, and freedom of speech.
Age Gates Everywhere
Legislators everywhere (not just in the US) want to age gate the entire internet. The US seems no different to any other country now, regardless of the supposed protections of the US Constitution. The Constitution seems to me, a Brit, not worth the paper its written on.