EveryAILaw.com

Oregon's definition is narrower and more mechanical than California's — it requires all three of cross-session memory, unprompted emotional questioning, and sustained personal dialogue, so a system that merely remembers a user is outside the act. The minor-facing break reminder in § 1(4)(b)(B) is a session-flow mandate, not a copy change.

The duty is a gate on access, not a best-efforts standard: without the protocol the operator may not allow Oregon users access at all. Two features go beyond California SB 243 — the protocol must use evidence-based detection methods rather than merely respond after the fact, and § 1(3)(b)(B) requires clinical best practices for escalated intervention when a user keeps expressing intent after the first referral.

This is the provision with no California analogue. Section 1(4)(c) bans variable-ratio reward schedules, guilt-inducing exit friction, and misrepresentation of the system's identity, capabilities, or training data — engagement-optimisation patterns, regulated as product design rather than as speech. Operators serving mixed-age audiences will need an age signal to know which regime applies, though the act imposes no age-verification duty.

Unlike California SB 243, which reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention, Oregon's report goes nowhere — it is self-published to a publicly accessible website with no filing, no recipient agency, and no review. Enforcement of the reporting duty is therefore the same private suit that covers the rest of section 1.