AI And Mental Well-Being

As a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI. For an extensive listing of my well over one hundred analyses and postings, see the link here and the link here.

There is little doubt that this is a rapidly developing field and that there are tremendous upsides to be had, but at the same time, regrettably, hidden risks and outright gotchas come into these endeavors, too. I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance on an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes, see the link here.

AI Providing Mental Health Guidance

Millions upon millions of people are using generative AI as their ongoing advisor on mental health considerations (note that ChatGPT alone has over 900 million weekly active users, a notable proportion of which dip into mental health aspects, see my analysis at the link here). The top-ranked use of contemporary generative AI and LLMs is to consult with the AI on mental health facets; see my coverage at the link here.

This popular usage makes abundant sense. You can access most of the major generative AI systems for nearly free or at a super low cost, doing so anywhere and at any time. Thus, if you have any mental health qualms that you want to chat about, all you need to do is log in to AI and proceed forthwith on a 24/7 basis.

There are significant worries that AI can readily go off the rails or otherwise dispense unsuitable or even egregiously inappropriate mental health advice. Banner headlines last year accompanied the lawsuit filed against OpenAI for their lack of AI safeguards when it came to providing cognitive advisement.

Today’s generic LLMs, such as ChatGPT, GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Grok, CoPilot, and others, are not at all akin to the robust capabilities of human therapists. Meanwhile, specialized LLMs are being built to attain similar qualities, but they are still primarily in the development and testing stages. See my coverage at the link here.

Various State Laws On AI Mental Health

A beehive of activity is taking place regarding crafting new AI laws. See my extensive coverage of state-level AI mental health laws at the link here. It is a matter on the minds of the public and in the hands of the state legislators. Some people ardently believe that AI and AI makers are being allowed to run amok. New AI laws are vitally needed to protect society from this onslaught of ubiquitous AI.

I previously examined a notable AI and mental health law passed last year by Illinois, see the link here, one that was also enacted by Nevada, see the link here, and one that was enacted by Utah, see the link here. Those laws are scoped to prevail within their respective state boundaries. In that sense, these laws are applicable to AI usage within the particular state and do not bear on other states per se.

Likewise, the new law enacted by Tennessee is also scoped within the state of Tennessee. But, unlike those other states, the Tennessee law is extraordinarily brief and only aims at a narrow consideration within the larger body of issues and societal challenges about AI and mental health.

Big Picture Of AI Mental Health Laws

Not everyone agrees with this pell-mell rush of new AI laws, or at least they are concerned that these AI laws might go overboard. In the zeal to protect society, there is a chance that we might unduly restrict innovation and delay or undercut the benefits of leading-edge AI. The debate is ongoing and heated.

Readers might recall that I proposed a 7-step AI-law-making process that I believe could substantively help regulators to devise new AI laws that are on target and balanced, see my depiction at the link here. This has an added benefit of reducing what I refer to as AI-law legal debt. This refers to AI laws that, though they look shiny, contain hidden debt that must ultimately be paid. Legal glitches and hitches will eventually be found when AI laws are passed without suitable scrutiny and analysis. My prediction is that the slew of newly passed AI laws is likely to create a legal quagmire in the courts.

In terms of the AI laws in the United States, they have not yet stood the test of time, meaning that we won’t really know how well they stand up until there are court cases that test these new laws. It is too early to know whether the laws will survive legal battles waged by AI makers and other contenders. Just because AI laws are enacted does not mean they are proper. All sorts of improper provisions and constitutionally contentious stipulations are undoubtedly buried within these shiny new AI laws.

Congress has repeatedly waded into establishing an overarching federal law that would encompass AI. So far, no dice. The efforts have ultimately faded from view. Thus, at this time, there isn’t an overarching federal law devoted to these controversial AI matters. The big question will be to what degree a sweeping federal law would impact the numerous state-level AI laws. The odds are that many of the state-level laws would run afoul of a federal mandate, and a tsunami of legal cases would arise as a tussle between federal law and state law is undertaken. It surely will be a legal mess.

The crux is that there is intense and pervasive interest in using the law to govern AI. It is an abundantly burgeoning realm. AI companies would be wise to keep a close eye on what is happening in the hallways and byways of regulators and legislative bodies. I have repeatedly noted that a profitable specialty for budding lawyers is to consider concentrating on the exciting and dynamic field of AI and the law, see my predictions and suggestions at the link here.

Mainstay Of The Tennessee Law SB1580

Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee signed into law SB1580 that amended the Tennessee Code under Title 33, Chapter 1, Part 2. The law adds a new section known as 33-1-205, going into effect starting on July 1, 2026, and consists principally of this mainstay stipulation:

• “A person who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system shall not advertise or represent to the public that such system is or is able to act as a qualified mental health professional.”

The presumed basis for the Act is that consumers are already being misled into believing that AI can perform psychological advisement on par with that of human mental health professionals. To try and prevent the public from being continually misled, the new law stipulates on a go-forward basis that AI developers and deployers of AI are not allowed to advertise or otherwise represent that their AI can provide that caliber of mental health guidance.

Many of the other state-level laws on AI and mental health tend to have a similar provision. That being said, this particular kind of provision is merely one of many stipulations within those other state-level laws. Tennessee opting to focus solely on one singular topic is eyebrow-raising.

Why not include the slew of other concerns about AI and mental health? Why just this one? The usual answer is that a lawmaker came up with one aspect that caught their attention, possibly on their own or at the behest of a constituent, and decided to run with it. Another angle is that this stipulation is one of the easiest to get across-the-board agreement on. If you include the myriad of related topics, overarching support is bound to get splintered. By keeping the law extremely narrow and on a topic that is less likely to be controversial, the odds of getting widespread support within a legislature are typically enhanced.

Notably, the Tennessee Senate passed the bill on a 32 to zero vote, and the Tennessee House passed the bill on a 94 to zero vote. You rarely get that overwhelming support for even the most innocuous of bills. AI regulation is usually a matter that splits votes. The aim of floating a one-topic-only bill, and that was on a rather non-provocative aspect of AI and mental health, likely helped streamline the process.

One and done.

Flaws In The Wording

Many AI laws are composed with the best intentions, but the legal beagles involved aren’t necessarily versed in AI and often leave gaping loopholes inadvertently. Lawmakers would be wise to get in-depth input from AI experts, and more so from AI experts who also understand the nuances of law writing. Getting an AI expert who is clueless about the interpretation of laws is not going to provide much added value.

Let’s unpack this new law and see where its holes are.

First, the law stipulates that AI is not to be advertised or represented to act as a qualified mental health professional. The question arises as to what is meant by the phrase "qualified mental health professional”. Though this Act doesn’t include such a definition, elsewhere in Title 33, there is a definition given:

• “A person who is licensed in the state, if required for the profession, and who is a psychiatrist; physician with expertise in psychiatry as determined by training, education, or experience; psychologist with health service provider designation; psychological examiner or senior psychological examiner; licensed master’s social worker with two (2) years of mental health experience or licensed clinical social worker; marital and family therapist; nurse with a master’s degree in nursing who functions as a psychiatric nurse; professional counselor; or if the person is providing service to service recipients who are children, any of the above educational credentials plus mental health experience with children.”

The murkiness entails whether an ad or representation of the AI actually crosses into that boundary.

The Legal Debate Ensues

For example, if an ad for an AI says that the AI will cure your mental woes, does that veer into representing that the AI is on par with a qualified mental health professional?

One fervent argument is that, yes, of course, the ad violates this law. The ad has an implication of that nature. The other side of the coin is that the ad doesn’t directly make such a proclamation. It simply says that AI will cure your mental woes. There isn’t any mention whatsoever that the AI is on par with human mental health professionals.

I think you can see that the ambiguous wording is going to give tremendous latitude to AI developers and deployers of AI. Unless they come right out and say that their AI is on par with qualified mental health professionals, a gray area will exist. Bringing a legal action against the AI developer or AI deployer will indubitably get legally mired in a semantics battle.

The wording could have easily been written to be clearer, more distinctive, and to reduce the downstream legal wrangling that will ultimately occur. A little more insightful work up front when composing AI laws has a huge payoff down the road after a law is on the books.

Nuisance Actions Are Inspired

Another vagueness has to do with the notion of representing the AI to the public. An advertisement is probably a bit more tangible and concrete. When you say representation, what does that entail?

Suppose an AI developer is being interviewed about their AI, and they say that while crafting the AI, they sought the help of mental health professionals during the training stage of the AI. The mental health professionals gave feedback to the AI, indicating what it was getting right and what it was getting wrong. This aided in tuning the AI toward being better at offering mental health advice.

Imagine you are selected to serve on a jury, and the case revolves around whether the AI developer did indeed “represent to the public” that the AI is or is able to act as a qualified mental health professional. The AI developer said they tapped into mental health professionals for assistance. They didn’t overtly say that the AI acts on par with mental health professionals. At the same time, maybe that interview was worded on a wink-wink basis.

The thing is, someone who believes that the AI developer has violated this new law could claim that the AI developer spilled the beans and ought to be held accountable under the law. The person bringing the case might be sincere. Or the person might be intentionally going the nuisance route. The ambiguity in the law invites those who have ulterior motives to lean into the law to their advantage.

Penalties For Violating The New Law

The new law has some teeth to it, providing for these penalties:

• “A violation of subsection (a) constitutes a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, compiled in title 47, chapter 18, part 1. A violation of subsection (a) constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice affecting trade or commerce and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.”
• “Notwithstanding the civil penalty limits provided by the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, a violation of subsection (a) is subject to a civil penalty of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.”

Worries are that unsuspecting small or medium-sized AI makers or AI deployers might readily get dragged into court and face imposing penalties and fines. A large AI firm might shake off the matter and consider any such efforts as the cost of doing business. When an AI law is a catch-all and indeterminate, there is a solid chance it can accidentally stifle innovation or shift burdens that inhibit AI advancement.

Heartfelt But Not All There

To clarify, the heart of the matter at hand is to protect the public from unscrupulous claims that AI is on par with human mental health professionals (at this time). This is a laudable goal. No doubt about it.

The problem is that when a law has too much leeway and haziness, it can have unintended adverse consequences. Brevity is nice, but indistinctness is fraught with challenges. False negatives can arise. False positives will also occur. If a state wants to focus on a singular topic in the realm of AI and mental health, that’s up to them, though a lot of other pressing issues are then left on the bench awaiting their turn. Meanwhile, a singular focus should have as much clarity and specificity in the stipulation to ensure that what is covered is the same as what is intended and doesn’t readily allow slippage.

New AI laws should closely consider reviewing other similar existing AI laws to figure out what wording works and what wording isn’t quite up to par. Notably, do not assume that just because a law was passed, the wording is good to go. Likely not. In any case, cast a wide net when writing an AI law and get as much expert-level feedback as possible, even when a law is only a few sentences in length.

A final thought comes from the great words of Benjamin Franklin: "Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed."