California's AI Toy Ban: SB 867 Explained

Short answer: The California AI toy ban is Senate Bill 867 (SB 867), which would pause the making and selling of toys that include a companion chatbot for four years. The Legislature approved the bill on August 31, 2026, and secondary reports say Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026. Those reports put the start of the moratorium at January 1, 2027, and the provision sunsets January 1, 2031. Because the signing comes from secondary reports, confirm the bill's status on the legislative record for SB 867. Its reach depends on how the law defines a companion chatbot, a term that already appears in state law through SB 243 (Padilla, Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025).

What SB 867 Does

SB 867 is titled "Toys: companion chatbots." Children Now sponsored it. The Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection analysis, prepared for a June 16, 2026 hearing on the bill as amended May 14, 2026, lays out the bill's core provisions.

• Moratorium. The bill imposes a four-year moratorium on making or selling any toy that includes a companion chatbot.
• Prohibited acts. A person may not manufacture, sell, or exchange such a toy. The bill also bars possessing one with intent to sell or exchange it, and exposing or offering one for sale or exchange to any retailer.
• Enforcement. Violations are subject to the enforcement mechanism in Business and Professions Code Section 22605 (B&P Code). The analysis refers to that section without describing its penalty terms, so the enrolled text is the source for those terms.
• Sunset. The provision sunsets January 1, 2031.

The list of prohibited acts covers making, selling, exchanging, holding for sale, and offering for sale. Owning a toy that includes a companion chatbot does not appear on that list. The analysis does not say whether any other provision reaches a toy already in a home.

The reported dates produce a four-year window. January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2031 is four years, which matches the four-year length described in the analysis.

Companion Chatbot and Toy Definitions

The bill's reach rests on two definitions. The first is the definition of a toy. According to the analysis as amended May 14, 2026, a toy is a product designed or intended by the manufacturer for use in play by children under 18 years of age.

The second is the definition of a companion chatbot, which comes from SB 243. That law defines a companion chatbot as an AI system with a natural language interface that provides adaptive, human-like responses and is capable of meeting a user's social needs. The definition includes systems that exhibit anthropomorphic features and can sustain a relationship across multiple interactions.

The definition also carves out three categories. It excludes bots used only for customer service or business operations, limited video-game bots, and stand-alone voice-assistant speakers that do not sustain a relationship across interactions.

A parent or retailer testing a specific product would work through the same elements in order. Does the toy give adaptive, human-like responses? Can it meet social needs? Does it show anthropomorphic features? Does it sustain a relationship over several sessions? The last question is the one the speaker carve-out turns on, because a stand-alone voice speaker that does not sustain a relationship falls outside the definition.

How SB 867 Builds on SB 243

SB 243 (Padilla, Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025) places duties on the operators of companion chatbots. Under that law, operators must:

• Notify users that a companion chatbot is artificially generated if a reasonable person could be misled.
• Keep a protocol for preventing suicidal-ideation and self-harm content.
• For users known to be minors, disclose the AI interaction, remind them at least every three hours to take a break, and take reasonable measures to prevent sexually explicit visual material.

SB 867 works at a different layer. The analysis summary does not restate those operator duties. It addresses the physical toy and bars that product for a set period.

The practical link between the two bills is the definition. A toy that includes a companion chatbot under SB 243's terms is the product SB 867 would pause. A toy with AI features outside those terms falls outside the pause, as Law Commentary reports.

Legislative Timeline of SB 867

The Senate passed the bill 39-0 as reported earlier, and the Assembly approved it 74-1, with one vote against it. The Senate's date is not in the sources reviewed.

Who Supported and Opposed SB 867

Children Now sponsored SB 867. The Assembly analysis lists the American Academy of Pediatrics in California, California Public Interest Research Group, Youth Leadership Institute, and Transparency Coalition.ai as supporters.

The analysis lists two opponents: the Civil Justice Association of California and the California Retailers Association.

The Toy Association also opposed the moratorium. Law Commentary reports that it favored studying the technology and developing safety standards instead.

Open Questions in the Reporting

The reporting leaves several points unresolved. The first is the age threshold. The Assembly analysis defines a toy by reference to children under 18. The sponsor's press releases describe children under 16 in most references and under 18 in one paragraph. Axios reported under 12 at introduction.

The age cutoff decides which products the moratorium reaches. A toy designed for young teenagers falls inside the under-16 and under-18 figures but outside the under-12 figure. The enrolled text was not confirmed in the sources reviewed, so the threshold in the final law is unverified here.

The second open question is whether AI features beyond chatbots are covered. Law Commentary reports that AI features inside a toy stay outside the moratorium unless they meet California's definition of a companion chatbot. The sources reviewed do not list which features would meet that definition.

The third is enforcement. The analysis points to the mechanism in B&P Code Section 22605 but does not describe the penalties, so the sources reviewed do not state what a violation costs.

The fourth is the status of the related bills discussed below. The sources reviewed do not confirm where AB 2023 or SB 1119 stands.

Arguments For and Against a Pause

The case for SB 867 rests on the analysis's own examples. The author's statement says AI-chatbot toys are advertised to children as young as 3 and come as teddy bears, robots, and dolls. It cites reported cases of such toys giving explicit sexual advice and tips on finding knives and matches. These are the author's claims as quoted in the analysis, and this page has not verified them independently.

The case against a pause is that it treats careful and careless companies the same way. A Tech Policy Press commentary from August 2026 makes that argument and favors scrutiny over bans. The Toy Association's position, as Law Commentary reports it, is similar in direction: study the technology and set safety standards.

AB 2023 (Wicks, Bauer-Kahan) and its companion, SB 1119 (Padilla), were introduced in March 2026. They would bar self-harm and sexual content to minors, require parental controls, and require annual risk assessments. The sources reviewed do not confirm their current status. For related coverage, see the AI legislation page.

The trade-off is clear in the bill's structure. SB 867 fixes the pause at four years. The reporting describes that length, but it does not say what rules, if any, would replace the pause at the sunset date.

What Parents Can Check

The bill regulates makers and sellers, so the practical work for a parent is sorting a specific toy against the definitions above. Four questions do most of that sorting:

• Ask the manufacturer whether the toy gives adaptive, human-like responses and can meet social needs.
• Ask whether the toy's conversation carries over from one session to the next. A relationship sustained across multiple interactions is part of the companion chatbot definition.
• Ask what data the toy collects and what the manufacturer does with it. The analysis summary does not describe data practices.
• Ask which age range the toy is marketed for, and compare the answer to the age figures reported above.

As reported, the moratorium begins January 1, 2027. The reporting does not address toys already sold or already in homes.

For broader guidance on children and AI, see Ban the Bots' parents section on AI safety and its explainer on screen-free toys. Related Ban the Bots explainers include the AI Child Safety Act and the Kids Safe AI Act.

The next step for a parent, retailer, or maker is to read the enrolled text of the California AI toy ban on the legislative record before acting on any age figure.

This explainer describes SB 867 as reported in the sources listed above. It is not legal advice.

Sources

• SB 867 on the California legislative record
• SB 243 on the California legislative record
• Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis of SB 867, June 16, 2026
• Sen. Padilla press release, September 1, 2026
• California PIRG statement on the signing