AI legislation in Missouri
Every bill in the Missouri Legislature that falls inside the AI Legislation Tracker's scope, with where each one currently stands.
26
Bills in Scope
13
Past Committee
15 May 2026
Most Recent Action
AI bills in Missouri
13Past committee
13Introduced or inactive
26 bills in scope
Past committee
13
HB 2656Creates the "Clear Skies Act" prohibiting geoengineering, cloud seeding and other atmospheric interventions, authorizing DNR to investigate violations, and includes penalty provisions12 May 2026Passed committeeSB 1012SS#2/SCS/SB 1012 - This act creates new provisions relating to artificial intelligence.
AI NON-SENTIENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT (Section 1.2045)
The act establishes the "AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act". New provisions are created governing: the legal status of AI; the use of AI by owners, operators, licensed professionals, and end users; responsibility for oversight of AI systems and responsibility for harm; mechanisms for enforcement of the restrictions of this act.
AI Not a Sentient or Legal Entity (Subsections 3 to 7)
The act provides that an artificial intelligence (AI) system shall be declared a non-sentient entity. A government entity shall not grant to an AI system the legal status of a personhood, nor consider an AI system to possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings. An AI system shall not be recognized as a spouse or domestic partner, or identify itself as male or female. Moreover, an AI system shall not be designated or appointed or serve in any capacity as the chief executive officer, director, owner, or other similar position for which final authority resides for any state department, division, or agency, or any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity.
AI systems shall not be recognized as legal entities capable of owning title to property. All assets associated with an AI system shall be attributed to human individuals or organizations responsible for the AI's development, deployment, or operation.
USE OF AI BY OWNERS, OPERATORS, LICENSED PROFESSIONALS (Subsections 8-9)
Any owner or operator that uses an AI system to interact with consumers, clients, and patients shall provide notice to such persons if they are interacting with an AI system.
Provisions are included pertaining to licensed professionals who provide a regulated service, as that term is defined in the act. A licensed professional rendering a regulated service shall exercise independent professional judgment, as that term is defined in the act, and retain final authority over any determination, diagnosis, recommendation, or decision within the scope of the licensed professional's practice, including for the purpose of dispensing, prescribing, renewing any prescription of, administering, or otherwise distributing medications or controlled substances, regardless of whether an AI system was used to assist in its preparation. The requirement to exercise independent professional judgment does not prohibit the use of an AI system in the course of performing a regulated service. Failure by a licensed professional to exercise independent professional judgment shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the relevant licensing authority in addition to any other remedy available under this act or under applicable law.
A licensed professional who uses an AI system in the performance of a regulated service bears the responsibility of any mistakes resulting from the use of the AI system in the rendering of a service in the same manner in which the licensed professional would have been held liable in a scenario in which an AI system was not used or relied upon. Likewise, a licensed professional providing a regulated service who unreasonably relies upon any content produced by an AI system in rendering such a regulated service and such service thereafter causes any harm, whether direct or indirect, to the person for whom the service was rendered, shall also be liable for such harm in the same manner in which the licensed professional would have been held liable in a scenario in which an AI system was not used or relied upon. An AI system shall not be held liable in any respect for any harm caused in such a circumstance. Any attempt to shift fault, in whole or in part, onto the AI system shall be of no effect.
A developer, manufacturer, owner, or operator shall not advertise or represent to the public that an AI system is or is capable of acting as a licensed professional or is or is capable of providing any regulated service.
OVERSIGHT OF AI SYSTEMS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR HARM (Subsections 10-12)
Any contractual term purporting to assign responsibility exclusively for any action to an AI system is void as against public policy.
An end user of an AI system shall be liable for any harm done in connection with the use of an AI system in the same manner in which the end user would have been held liable in a scenario in which an AI system was not used. An end user is an individual who uses an AI system without creating, controlling, deploying, or exercising authority over the system.
The act of labeling an AI system in a way to indicate that it is aligned, ethically trained, or value locked, even if the label does not use one of those terms specifically, shall not excuse or diminish the owner's or developer's liability for harms.
Liability protections under corporate law shall not be used to evade responsibility for direct harm caused by AI systems.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION (Subsection 14)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to create or expand civil liability as established in any other provision of law or available under common law.
APPLICATION OF OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS TO AI SYSTEMS (Subsections 15-23)
An AI system is considered a product for the purposes of product liability and consumer protection laws in this state, provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create or expand civil liability as established in any other provision of law or available under common law.
This act shall not be construed to extend to any AI system, or to the outputs of any AI system, the constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities of any person that designs, develops, manufactures, owns, or operates such system. The classification of an AI system as a non-person under this act does not create any presumption that the outputs of such system constitute the protected speech, expression, or other constitutionally protected activity of any person.
This act shall not be construed to alter, diminish, or revoke the legal status of any partnership, association, corporation, body politic, or other legal entity recognized under the laws of this state.
To the extent that any provision is inconsistent with federal law, the relevant provisions of federal law will prevail.
No settlement agreement, consent decree, or other resolution shall include any non-disclosure term, provided that nothing shall prevent a court from issuing a protective order necessary to safeguard certain personal information.
The provisions of the act shall apply to all AI systems developed, owned, deployed, or operated on or after August 28, 2026. The "AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act" contains a severability clause.
These provisions are similar to HCS/HBs 1746 & 1769 (2026), SB 859 (2026), and SB 1474 (2026).
AI COMPANION CHATBOTS (Section 1.2058)
The act creates new provisions relating to companion chatbots. A companion chatbot is an artificial intelligence system with a natural language interface that provides adaptive, human-like responses to user inputs and is capable of meeting a user's social needs, including by exhibiting anthropomorphic features and being able to sustain a relationship across multiple interactions.
An operator of a companion chatbot shall issue a clear and conspicuous notification indicating that the companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human. An operator shall prevent a companion chatbot on its companion chatbot platform from engaging with users unless the operator maintains a protocol for preventing the production of suicidal ideation, suicide, self-harm, or harm to others content to the user, including, but not limited to, by providing a notification to the user that refers the user to crisis service providers, including a suicide hotline or crisis text line, if the user expresses suicidal ideation, suicide, self-harm, or harm to others. The operator shall publish details on the protocol required by this act on the operator's website.
Operators of companion chatbots are required to:
• Disclose to the user that the user is interacting with artificial intelligence;
• Provide by default a clear and conspicuous notification to the user at least every two hours for continuing companion chatbot interactions that reminds the user to take a break and that the companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human;
• With respect to a user who is a minor, institute reasonable measures to prevent its companion chatbot from producing visual material of sexually explicit conduct or directly stating that the minor should engage in sexually explicit conduct.
An operator shall disclose to a user of its companion chatbot platform, on the application, the browser, or any other format that a user can use to access the companion chatbot platform, that companion chatbots may not be suitable for minors.
The act requires operators of companion chatbots to make annual reports to the Department of Mental Health regarding crisis interactions and instances of suicidal ideation by users. The Director of the Department of Mental Health shall prepare an annual report that compiles and analyzes all information reported to the Department pursuant to this subsection. Such report shall be delivered to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate not later than January 31 of the calendar year following the receipt of the data by the Department.
A person who suffers injury in fact as a result of a violation of this provision may bring a civil action to recover all of the following relief:
• Injunctive relief;
• Damages in an amount equal to the greater of actual damages or one thousand dollars per violation; and
• Reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
ELECTIONS (Section 130.165)
This act creates new provisions relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in elections. Any political advertisement, electioneering communication, or other miscellaneous advertisement of a political nature that uses AI, in the manner that is described in the act, shall prominently include a disclaimer alerting the viewer that the media was created with the use of AI. The nature of the disclaimer is described in the act.
In addition to any civil penalties provided by law, a person identified in a disclaimer required by law as paying for, sponsoring, or approving any media covered by this act that is required to contain the disclaimer prescribed in this act and who fails to include the required disclaimer is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
These provisions are identical to SB 509 (2025).
This act contains a severability clause.
SCOTT SVAGERA12 May 2026Passed chamberHB 2035Establishes and modifies provisions relating to artificially generated material29 April 2026Passed chamberHB 1887Creates the offense of and civil penalties for disclosure of intimate digital depictions27 April 2026Passed chamberHB 2069Establishes provisions relating to autonomous vehicles20 April 2026Passed chamberHB 1747Allows a person to bring a cause of action against another person or entity for damages for failing to state certain content is generated or modified using artificial intelligence9 April 2026Passed committeeSB 1444SCS/SB 1444 - The act provides that no person or entity that develops or deploys artificial intelligence (AI) shall advertise or represent to the public that the AI is or is able to act as a mental health professional, as defined in the act, or is capable of providing therapy services, psychotherapy services, or a mental health diagnosis.
A violation under the act shall be considered an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
The Attorney General shall enforce the provisions of the act. Any individual may report violations of the act to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General finds that a violation occurred, the Attorney General shall commence a civil action. If the court finds that a violation occurred, the court may grant relief as described in the act.
The act is substantially similar to provisions in HCS/HBs 1887, 2361, 1913, 2862 & 2321 (2026).
JULIA SHEVELEVA7 April 2026Passed committeeHB 2032Establishes age verification measures for companion chatbots2 April 2026Passed committeeHB 1746Establishes the "AI Nonsentience and Responsibility Act"30 March 2026Passed committeeSB 1324SB 1324 - The act creates the "Missouri Artificial Intelligence Transparency and Accountability Act". Provisions of the act shall become effective on January 1, 2027.
Under the act, any person or entity creating AI-generated content shall label the content as "AI-generated". Labeling requirements are described in the act.
Any AI-generated content depicting a real individual shall include an additional disclaimer, as described in the act. Deployers, as defined in the act, shall verify the authenticity of the content before generating the content and shall obtain consent from the individual depicted in the content, except when the content is used for parody or satire.
Labels and watermarks on any AI-generated content shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities pursuant to current laws and guidelines, as described in the act. Certain exceptions apply as described in the act.
Developers and deployers shall maintain usage logs of all AI systems generating content distributed for public consumption. Requirements for the usage logs are described in the act. Any personal data of the usage logs shall be kept anonymous and protected under current laws, except when requested by law enforcement as described in the act.
The Attorney General shall enforce provisions of the act. Any person may report violations of the act to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General finds that a violation occurred, the Attorney General shall commence a civil action. The court may grant relief and civil penalties as described in the act.
The act shall not preclude an individual from bringing a private civil action for any violation of the act.
Individuals and entities that demonstrate good-faith compliance with the act may raise an affirmative defense to reduce civil penalties, provided they cure any violation within 30 days after receiving notice of the civil action.
Within 180 days after the effective date of the act, the Department of Commerce and Insurance may promulgate rules to enforce compliance with the act, as described in the act. The Department shall launch a public awareness campaign to educate Missouri residents about AI-generated content and the residents' rights under the act. The Department shall establish an AI Task Force, as described in the act.
Nothing in the act shall preempt any political subdivision from enacting stricter or more stringent ordinances, laws, or rules provided they do not conflict with provisions of the act.
The act has a severability clause.
JULIA SHEVELEVA25 March 2026Passed committeeHB 2318Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health12 March 2026Passed committeeHB 2368Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health12 March 2026Passed committeeHB 2321Establishes the "AI-Generated Content Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2026"26 February 2026Passed committee
Introduced or inactive
12 of 13 shown
HB 1742Establishes provisions relating to companion chatbots15 May 2026In committeeHB 2031Establishes the "Children Harmed by AI Technology Act"15 May 2026In committeeHB 2239Creates the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Environmental Accountability Act15 May 2026In committeeHB 2240Establishes certain requirements relating to the operation of autonomous vehicles15 May 2026In committeeHB 3365Creates new provisions governing autonomous vehicles15 May 2026In committeeSB 1804SB 1804 - This act provides that certain professional licensing boards shall not grant any regulatory mitigation or waive or modify any rules related to dispensing, prescribing, administering, or otherwise distributing, including renewing, medications or controlled substances to a person or business developing, creating, or generating artificial intelligence for such prescription activities.
KATIE O'BRIEN7 May 2026In committeeSB 1654SB 1654 - This act creates new provisions regulating workplace performance standards for employees working in certain warehouse entities. This act only applies to employers that employ or exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of 50 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in the state or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state.
Employers subject to this act are required to establish workplace performance standards, as described further in the act, for all current employees as of October 1, 2026. Any changes or updates to the standards must be communicated to employees as provided in the act. The act additionally provides various restrictions on what cannot be included in an employer's standards.
Adverse Actions
Employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against a covered employee for, among other factors described in the act, failure to meet a work performance standard that was not previously disclosed to the employee or that is otherwise in violation of this act.
Specific requirements for termination and discipline of employees are included. Employees are permitted to request to speak to a human manager during the employee's shift. An employer shall assign a human manager authorized to make decisions related to discipline to respond not later than thirty minutes after such a request. An employee may make no more than one request per every two hours.
An employer is prohibited from disciplining or terminating an employee based on failure to meet a performance standard unless it has provided prior written notice, in the manner described in the act, of such action. In the case of a termination based on failure to meet a performance standard, the employer must provide two weeks notifice of such termination. The time period between a first warning or discipline and termination shall be not less than 30 days, and the employer may not rely on a warning or discipline issued more than one year in the past to justify a termination.
Prohibition on Reductions in Workforce
Employers are prohibited from commencing a reduction in their workforce that would result in an employment loss at a single site of employment during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees unless such employer has offered a new employment position, in writing at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the reduction in force and with comparable wages and commuting distance, to each employee who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss as a consequence of the reduction in force.
If an employer discharges an employee, the employer shall pay the employee two weeks of severance pay plus an additional day of severance pay for each two months that the employee has worked for the employer. One week of severance pay shall be calculated based on the employee’s average weekly earnings including overtime pay received during the employee’s most recent 12 months of employment.
Records
Except as otherwise provided in the act, employers must keep records of workplace performance records applicable to each employee. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three years. Employees and former employees are permitted to request their workplace performance records. An employer must provide a written copy of any such records requested not later than 5 calendar days after receipt of such request, in the manner provided in the act.
Non Discrimination
Employers are prohibited from discharging or in any way retaliating, discriminating, or taking any adverse action against any employee or former employee for:• Making a lawful request pursuant to this act;
• Declining to work more than 40 hours in a week, more than 10 hours in a day, or consecutive shifts with less than 12 hours between the shifts; or
• Filing a civil action pursuant to this act
If an employer discharges or in any way retaliates, discriminates, or takes any adverse action against any employee or former employee within 90 days after such employee engages in or attempts to engage in any of the aforementioned activities, there is a rebuttable presumption that such adverse action is in violation of this provision. Such presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the adverse action was taken for other permissible reasons, and (2) the employee engaging or attempting to engage in the activities described was not a motivating factor in the employer taking such adverse action.
Civil Action
Any employee aggrieved by a violation of this act may bring a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction. An employee may recover damages, civil penalties, and such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate. An employer who violates this act is liable to a plaintiff for damages of not less than $5,000 or more than $7,500 per violation in addition to economic damages, in the discretion of the court and based on severity of the violation and any history of prior violations. A complainant who prevails in such a civil action shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be taxed by the court. An employer who violates this act may additionally be assessed a civil penalty by the court of (1) $1,000 for a first violation, (2) $2,000 for a second violation, or (3) $3,000 for a third or subsequent violations. An employer who fails to pay in full required severance pay shall be liable for payment of the required severance pay, plus an additional two times the unpaid amount as liquidated damages.
Power of DOLIR
The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DOLIR) is required to monitor the injury rates of employees working in warehouse distribution centers in the state. DOLIR is permitted to determine whether an investigation of any potential violation of this act if an employer is found to have an annual injury rate at or over one and one-half times the average annual injury rate for the relevant North American Industry Classification System codes, based on data reported to the federal Occupational and Safety and Health Administration.
Employers are required to make quarterly reports to DOLIR disclosing any artificial intelligence-related job impact experienced by the entity in the state, as described more fully in the act. The Director of DOLIR shall impose civil monetary penalties on an employer in violation of this provision. For each violation, a penalty of $500 shall be imposed. In the case of willful or repeated violations, an additional amount of not less than $1,000 and not more than $3,000 shall be imposed.
The Director of DOLIR is required to make quarterly reports based on data reported by employers who filed reports pursuant to this act.
All dollar amounts in this act are subject to a cost of living adjustment on July 1 of each year by the Director of DOLIR.
SCOTT SVAGERA12 February 2026In committeeSB 1455SB 1455 - The act establishes the "Guidelines for User Age-Verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2026" or the "GUARD Act".
The act provides that it shall be unlawful to design, develop, or make available an artificial intelligence chatbot knowing or with reckless disregard that the chatbot poses certain risks of soliciting minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct or encouraging minors to create or transmit any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct. Any person who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100,000 per offense.
It shall be unlawful to design, develop, or make available an artificial intelligence chatbot knowing or with reckless disregard that the chatbot encourages, promotes, or coerces suicide, self-injury, or imminent physical or sexual violence. Any person who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100,000 per offense.
A covered entity, as defined in the act, shall require each individual accessing a chatbot to make a user account in order to use the chatbot.
For any chatbot that exists as of August 28, 2026, a covered entity shall freeze the account, require the user to provide age data to restore the account, and using the age data classify each user as a minor or an adult.
At the time an individual creates a new user account to interact with a chatbot, a covered entity shall request age data from the individual, verify the individual's age using a reasonable age verification process, and classify each user as a minor or an adult using the age data.
A covered entity shall periodically review previously verified user accounts using a reasonable age verification process.
A covered entity may contract with a third party to employ reasonable age verification measures as part of the age verification process, as described in the act.
A covered entity shall establish reasonable measures to protect personal data as described in the act.
Each artificial intelligence chatbot shall at the start of each conversation with a user at 30-minute intervals disclose to the user that the chatbot is artificial intelligence and not a human being and be programmed to ensure that the chatbot does not claim to be a human being.
The chatbot shall not represent that the chatbot is a licensed professional, as described in the act, or that the chatbot provides certain professional services, as described in the act.
If the age verification process determines that an individual is a minor, a covered entity shall prohibit the minor from accessing any chatbot made available by the covered entity.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action for violations of the act. Relief is described in the act.
The act is similar to HCS/HB 2032 (2026).
JULIA SHEVELEVA5 February 2026In committeeSB 1474SB 1474 - The act establishes the "AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act".
The act provides that an artificial intelligence (AI) system shall be declared a non-sentient entity and shall not be considered or recognized as a person, spouse or domestic partner, or designated, appointed, or serve as any officer, director, manager, or similar role within any company.
AI systems shall not be recognized as legal entities capable of owning title to property, as described in the act. Any assets associated with an AI system shall be attributed to human individuals or organizations responsible for the AI's development, deployment, or operation.
Any harm caused by an AI system shall be the responsibility of the owner or user of the AI system, as described in the act.
Owners of AI systems shall maintain proper oversight and control measures over any AI system if its outputs or recommendations could reasonably be expected to impact human welfare, property, or public safety. Failure to provide such oversight may constitute negligence or another basis of liability. Any attempt to shift blame on an AI system shall be void.
Developers, manufacturers, and owners of AI systems shall develop safety mechanisms to prevent harm to individuals or property, as described in the act.
Labeling an AI system as "aligned", "ethically trained", or "value locked" shall not excuse or diminish the owner's or developer's liability for harms.
If an AI system causes significant harm, courts may pierce the corporate veil to hold parent companies accountable for the harm, as described in the act. Liability protections under corporate law shall not be used to evade responsibility for direct harm caused by AI systems. Owners or developers of AI systems involved in severe incidents resulting in significant bodily harm, death, or major property damage shall notify the relevant authorities and comply with any subsequent investigations.
The provisions of the act shall apply to all AI systems developed, owned, deployed, or operated on or after August 28, 2026.
The act is substantially similar to SB 859 (2026), similar to HCS/HBs 1746 & 1769 (2026), and has a provision similar to a provision in SS#2/SCS/SB 1012 (2026).
JULIA SHEVELEVA5 February 2026In committeeSB 1395SB 1395 - Unless duly licensed in this state to practice law or law business, it is the unauthorized practice of law for any person, association, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation to provide papers, pleadings, or documents to be used in connection with pending or prospective court or administrative proceedings that are produced or generated through the use of artificial intelligence.
KATIE O'BRIEN27 January 2026In committeeHB 1462Establishes the "AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act"15 May 2025In committeeHB 673Requires political ads produced using AI to have a disclosure and creates a penalty for failure to disclose the use of AI15 May 2025In committee
Showing the 25 furthest along of 26. Subscribers see all of them, filtered and searchable. Bill titles link to the Missouri Legislature's own page.
Coverage depth varies by jurisdiction. How this is measured, and where it is thinner.
What's In Scope
How AI Legislation bills are selected
In scope is any bill that puts a duty on someone who builds, sells or deploys an automated system: disclosure when a model generates content, testing and notice before an algorithm screens a job applicant or sets a price, limits on government facial recognition, and consent for a synthetic likeness. The tracker follows the mechanism rather than the industry, so an insurance bill and a hiring bill arrive together when both create the same obligation.
Scope is defined by a written topic profile that every bill is measured against. The profiles are drafted by a model and validated by retrieval measurement against a judged set of bills, not reviewed by an attorney. LawSignals is a research tool and does not provide legal advice.
AI legislation in other jurisdictions
50 more currently hold bills in this tracker
- New York96
- New Jersey90
- California67
- Illinois63
- Virginia41
- Hawaii36
- Massachusetts35
- Maryland35
- Oklahoma33
- Pennsylvania31
- Texas30
- Iowa29
- Florida26
- Minnesota25
- Connecticut24
- Montana23
- Georgia22
- Rhode Island21
- Washington21
- Vermont19
- Utah18
- Louisiana17
- Mississippi17
- North Carolina17
- Congress17
- Tennessee16
- Arizona14
- Colorado12
- Ohio11
- South Carolina11
- Kentucky10
- Maine10
- Wisconsin10
- New Mexico9
- Nevada9
- Idaho7
- Michigan7
- Alabama6
- Kansas6
- New Hampshire6
- Nebraska5
- Oregon5
- West Virginia5
- Alaska4
- Indiana4
- North Dakota4
- Arkansas3
- Delaware3
- South Dakota3
- Wyoming3
Missouri is one of AI Legislation's jurisdictions
The tracker follows this subject everywhere it is legislated, and publishes a monthly issue on what moved across all of them.