EveryAILaw.com

The act is not yet codified into numbered Neb. Rev. Stat. sections on the face of the slip law, so provisions here are cited to the session-law section numbers of LB 525. Two design choices separate Nebraska from the other 2026 state chatbot statutes: a persistent visible disclaimer is an accepted substitute for the three-hour reminder cadence, which Washington's ESHB 2225 does not allow, and the duty attaches to minor *account holders* rather than to any minor user, so an operator that runs no accounts never triggers it.

Nebraska's engagement ban is narrower than Washington's eight-technique list: it reaches only variable-ratio rewards — points or similar rewards at unpredictable intervals with intent to increase engagement — leaving other retention mechanics untouched. The anthropomorphism duty is unusual in naming simulated emotional dependence and adult-minor romantic role-play as specific outputs the operator must take reasonable measures to prevent.

Nebraska is the only one of the 2026 state chatbot statutes to impose an affirmative account-controls duty, and it splits at age thirteen: parents of under-13 account holders get the tools as of right, while parents of 13-and-older account holders get "related tools" only "as appropriate based on relevant risks" — a risk-calibrated standard the act leaves to the operator to apply.

Unlike Washington's unconditional disclosure, Nebraska's general duty triggers only on the reasonable-person misleading test, so a service that is obviously artificial owes nothing under sec. 15 — the account-based minor duty in sec. 14(1) is the unconditional one. Sec. 17 bars only the explicit representation that the service is designed to deliver professional mental or behavioral health care, and it carries a knowing-and-intentional scienter element, so incidental therapeutic-sounding output is not itself a violation.

Nebraska states the crisis duty in a single sentence and, unlike Washington, does not gate deployment on having the protocol, name eating disorders, or require any public disclosure of referral counts — the duty is to adopt a protocol and make reasonable efforts to refer. The "includes, but is not limited to" framing leaves the floor open, which means the Attorney General, not the statute, will set the practical content of an adequate protocol.