EveryAILaw.comDoes Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act (SB 3001) require Risk Assessment?
Hawaii • enforcing
Yes — 1 provision
Requirements at a glance
This regulation imposes 5 specific requirements for Risk Assessment across 1 provision:
- Crisis response protocol — Adopt a protocol for the AI companion to respond to user prompts regarding suicidal ideation or self-harm that includes making reasonable efforts to provide a response referring the user to crisis intervention service providers, such as a suicide hotline, crisis text line, or other appropriate crisis services (§ (c)(1))
- Evidence-based measurement — Use evidence-based methods for measuring suicidal ideation and the risk of self-harm (§ (c)(2))
- No professional care claims — Do not cause or program the AI companion to make any representation or statement indicating that it is designed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care (§ (c)(3))
- No human-claiming during crisis — Institute reasonable measures to prevent the AI companion from making any representation or statement that would lead a reasonable person to believe they are interacting with a human where the user is seeking or receiving crisis intervention services for self-harm or suicide (§ (c)(4))
- No outputs encouraging harm to others — Institute reasonable measures to prevent the AI companion from generating outputs that encourage the user to cause serious bodily injury to another person (§ (c)(5))
Suicide, Self-Harm and Crisis Intervention Protocol #
Two duties here have almost no analogue in the cohort. § (c)(2) requires evidence-based methods for measuring suicidal ideation and the risk of self-harm — a methodological standard rather than a "reasonable measures" standard, which only Oregon and Colorado otherwise impose. § (c)(5) reaches outward: reasonable measures must prevent outputs encouraging the user to cause serious bodily injury to another person, and no other state statute in this cohort covers harm to third parties at all. § (c)(3) also bars the companion from representing that it is designed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care, which pulls the section into scope-of-practice territory alongside consumer protection.
Requirements
| Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
| Crisis response protocol | Adopt a protocol for the AI companion to respond to user prompts regarding suicidal ideation or self-harm that includes making reasonable efforts to provide a response referring the user to crisis intervention service providers, such as a suicide hotline, crisis text line, or other appropriate crisis services (§ (c)(1)) |
| Evidence-based measurement | Use evidence-based methods for measuring suicidal ideation and the risk of self-harm (§ (c)(2)) |
| No professional care claims | Do not cause or program the AI companion to make any representation or statement indicating that it is designed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care (§ (c)(3)) |
| No human-claiming during crisis | Institute reasonable measures to prevent the AI companion from making any representation or statement that would lead a reasonable person to believe they are interacting with a human where the user is seeking or receiving crisis intervention services for self-harm or suicide (§ (c)(4)) |
| No outputs encouraging harm to others | Institute reasonable measures to prevent the AI companion from generating outputs that encourage the user to cause serious bodily injury to another person (§ (c)(5)) |
Penalties
| Violation | Fine |
|---|---|
| Unfair or deceptive act or practice | Any violation of the section is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce within the meaning of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2 (§ (f)). The act itself sets no penalty amount |
| Enforcement | Enforced by the Office of Consumer Protection under the state's unfair and deceptive acts and practices authority |
| Private right of action | None. Nothing in the section may be interpreted as creating a private right of action to enforce it, or as supporting a private right of action under any other law (§ (f)) |
| Model developer shield | The section creates no liability for the developer of an artificial intelligence model for a violation by an AI system developed by a third party to provide an AI companion (§ (g)) |
| Cumulative duties | The duties, remedies and obligations imposed are cumulative to those imposed under other law and do not relieve an operator of any other duty (§ (h)) |