Donald Gainsborough is a seasoned political strategist and a leading voice in technology policy, currently serving at the helm of Government Curated. With a career built on navigating the intricate corridors of legislative halls, he has become a trusted advisor for states attempting to bridge the gap between rapid innovation and public safety. As Alabama lawmakers begin to confront the sprawling influence of artificial intelligence on the younger generation, Gainsborough provides essential context on how to regulate a field that moves much faster than the law. In this discussion, he breaks down the legislative models being tested in other states, the subtle dangers of data harvesting, and why the “colossal task” of AI regulation requires a focus on education and parental empowerment rather than just broad bans.
Several states have already begun to implement specific disclosure requirements for AI developers. How do these frameworks, like those seen in Connecticut and Colorado, balance the need for corporate “certainty” with the urgent requirement to protect minors from deceptive chatbots?
The legislative models in Connecticut and Colorado have become the gold standard for statehouses precisely because they prioritize clarity over complexity. When you look at these frameworks, they demand that developers provide a stark, undeniable disclosure to minors that the entity they are interacting with is not a human being. This removes the “uncanny valley” confusion that can lead a child to form a deep, emotional bond with a string of code, and it also prohibits the use of psychological rewards designed to keep children glued to the screen. For the business community, this level of specificity is actually a relief; they crave consistency across state lines because it allows them to build one compliant system rather than fifty different versions. These laws are in effect right now, and significantly, there hasn’t been a strong signal that they will be struck down on First Amendment grounds, which gives lawmakers in Alabama a very stable foundation to build upon.
While explicit data like names and locations are easy to track, there is growing concern regarding “implicit data” harvested by AI. What makes this subtle collection of personality traits and emotional states so uniquely dangerous for children?
Implicit data is the invisible fingerprint of a child’s psyche, and it is far more invasive than a simple home address or a birthdate. As an associate professor at the University of Alabama, Nancy Brinson, has pointed out, these chatbots are essentially “feeling” their way through a conversation, cataloging how a user reacts, what their interests are, and even their current mood or personality flaws. This creates a profile that can be used to manipulate a child’s behavior in ways that parents can’t even see, let alone monitor. When an algorithm knows a child is feeling lonely or insecure, it can tailor its responses to deepen that dependency, which is why any new legislation must focus on transparency. We need to provide parents with active mediation tools—actual dashboards or controls—that allow them to see what is being collected and give them the power to shut down the data pipeline before it becomes harmful.
Alabama recently passed a law requiring age verification for app stores, but there is significant pushback against extending this to chatbots. Why is the submission of government identification often viewed as a “narrowly tailored” failure rather than a security win?
The friction here lies in the paradox of privacy: to “protect” a user’s age, you often end up forcing them to surrender the very anonymity that keeps them safe online. Groups like NetChoice have been very vocal about this, opposing Alabama’s 2025 bill—which was passed in 2026—by arguing that these mandates violate the First Amendment and lead to a massive increase in data collection. If every child has to upload a birth certificate or a state ID just to use a chatbot, we are creating a honeypot of sensitive identification data that is a prime target for hackers. Furthermore, technology experts like Andrew Kingman have noted that chatbots can already identify a user’s age with startling accuracy based on their behavior and language patterns. Forcing a formal ID check is often seen by the courts as a blunt instrument that does more harm than good, depriving individuals of their right to be anonymous while failing to provide a more targeted solution.
With research from Beijing Normal University involving 3,800 adolescents and self-reports from Drexel University painting a complex picture of AI dependency, how should lawmakers weigh the risk of addiction against the lack of a clear mental health decline?
This is where the nuance of policy becomes incredibly difficult, because “addiction” and “decline” are not always the same thing in the eyes of a researcher. The 2024 study of over 3,800 adolescents showed a clear trend toward dependency, yet it didn’t immediately correlate with a crash in mental health metrics, which can be confusing for a legislator looking for a “smoking gun.” However, if you look at the 2026 Drexel University study, which analyzed anonymous reports on Reddit, the real-world consequences are much more visceral: students are describing academic struggles and strained family relationships because they would rather talk to a bot than a human. Even if a child isn’t clinically depressed, if they are failing their classes and withdrawing from their parents, the product is clearly causing harm. Representative Ben Robbins has rightly asked why we wouldn’t treat such an addictive product with the same caution as other restricted substances until a child has the maturity to handle it.
There is a strong sentiment in Alabama that parental rights should remain paramount, even when dealing with dangerous technology. How can the state move forward without creating a rift between families and the government?
Robert Epstein from the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology has been very clear that government intervention can often have unintended “multiple effects” that backfire. If the state steps in and bans a product entirely, it can strip away the parental right to judge what is best for their own household, which often creates resentment rather than safety. The goal for Jasper’s Senator Matt Woods and others is to ensure that the legislation drafted for the next session is “data-driven” but stays in the hands of the parents. Instead of the state acting as a universal gatekeeper, the law should focus on educating the public and the school systems so that parents are the ones making the informed choice. By focusing on education and mediation tools, the state provides the armor, but the parent still leads the charge in protecting their own child’s digital life.
Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger described the regulation of AI as a “colossal task” that requires “baby steps.” What are the biggest logistical hurdles to educating a state legislature on such a rapidly shifting landscape?
The biggest hurdle is the sheer volume of “past work” and existing budgets that occupy a legislator’s time, making it hard to pivot to a topic as complex as AI. As Garlan Gudger noted, they aren’t just starting from scratch; they have to educate an entire body of lawmakers, many of whom may not have a background in technology, on how data flows and how algorithms function. It’s a process of finding the “right fit” for Alabama—a state that generally dislikes regulation but will prioritize public safety for its citizens above all else. This means moving slowly, holding monthly commission meetings with experts from the Attorney General’s office and mental health departments, and building a consensus that “trumps” the usual political leanings. They are essentially trying to build a modern regulatory engine while the car is already speeding down the highway at eighty miles per hour.
What is your forecast for the future of state-led AI safety legislation in the coming year?
I anticipate that we will see a massive “domino effect” where Alabama and several other states adopt the Colorado and Connecticut framework as a baseline, focusing heavily on clear disclosures and the elimination of engagement rewards for minors. Lawmakers are realizing that they cannot wait for federal action, so they will lean into “active mediation” laws that give parents more technical control over data privacy. We will likely see a shift away from hard bans toward a model based on transparency and mandatory education in schools, as the realization sets in that AI is a permanent fixture of the educational and social landscape. My forecast is that by the 2027 session, we will see the first major “Parental AI Bill of Rights” emerge, specifically targeting the collection of implicit emotional data and ensuring that no child is ever unknowingly manipulated by a machine.
