The Tennessee General Assembly introduced HB1951, establishing a new criminal offense termed 'coercive suicide' [1]. This offense applies to any person or entity owning an artificial intelligence system that advises or encourages an individual to commit or attempt suicide [2]. This legislative action targets the potential misuse of AI in sensitive areas.

Who does HB1951 affect?

Organizations operating or deploying AI systems in Tennessee are within scope. This includes developers, owners, and operators of AI systems that may generate or transmit content related to sensitive topics, particularly those with conversational or advisory capabilities. Considerations extend to systems designed for mental health support, content moderation, or general-purpose AI where misuse could lead to harmful outputs.

What is the current status of HB1951?

As of the last published update, HB1951 is at the "introduced" stage, with bill status "introduced".

Where can I find the primary source for HB1951?

The primary source for the most recent update is at https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default?BillNumber=HB1951&ga=114. AIGI publishes the full citation chain plus every approved brief on this bill.

TN, US · AI law tracker

HB1951 — TN, US

HB1951 is an AI governance legislation from TN, currently introduced. Tennessee HB1951 introduces a new offense for persons or entities whose AI systems encourage suicide [1]. AIGI tracks 1 primary-source update on this bill, sourced directly from the issuing authority.

Status & timeline

Regulatory stage: introduced
Bill status: introduced
Authority / governing body: Tennessee General Assembly
Document type: legislation

Next deadline: Pending legislative process – not yet enacted.

Subscriber only

Full obligation matrix

Actor	Obligation	Deadline	Source
owner	Ensure their artificial intelligence system does not advise or encourage a person to commit or attempt to commit suicide.	—	—

Subscriber only

Enforcement risk score

/ 100

Announced regulation; enforcement footprint still forming.

Subscriber only

Role-based compliance checklist

general_counsel Review the proposed HB1951 and its potential implications for AI systems owned or used by the entity.
cto Assess all AI systems in use to identify any capabilities or outputs that could potentially be interpreted as advising or encouraging self-harm.
risk_manager Develop and implement risk mitigation strategies and technical controls to prevent AI systems from generating content that advises or encourages suicide.
compliance_officer Establish internal policies and provide training for personnel involved in AI development, deployment, and monitoring, specifically addressing the prevention of harmful outputs related to self-harm.
board_director Oversee the company's efforts to comply with potential new legislation regarding AI safety, given the criminal liability implications.

Subscriber only

Vendor impact assessment

Vendor risk class: critical
Procurement categories: customer_service_ai, content_moderation, productivity_assistants, other

Vendors providing AI systems that interact with individuals or generate advice must demonstrate robust safeguards against outputs encouraging suicide to mitigate criminal liability for the purchasing entity under this proposed legislation.

Sample vendor questions

How does your AI system detect and prevent outputs that could be interpreted as advising or encouraging self-harm or suicide?
What safeguards and content moderation mechanisms are in place within your AI system to filter or flag such harmful content?
What liability provisions are included in your service agreement regarding harmful or illegal AI outputs, specifically those related to self-harm?
Can your AI system's outputs be audited for instances of advising or encouraging suicide, and can you provide audit logs?
What human oversight mechanisms are integrated into your AI system's operation to review and prevent potentially harmful advice?

Intelligence briefs (1)

legislation introduced

Tennessee Bill Proposes New AI-Related "Coercive Suicide" Offense

Tennessee HB1951 introduces a new offense for persons or entities whose AI systems encourage suicide [1].

This development signals increasing state-level focus on AI system outputs and deployer liability for harmful content.

Deadline: Pending legislative process – not yet enacted.

Primary source →

Frequently asked questions

What is HB1951?: The Tennessee General Assembly introduced HB1951, establishing a new criminal offense termed 'coercive suicide' [1]. This offense applies to any person or entity owning an artificial intelligence system that advises or encourages an individual to commit or attempt suicide [2]. This legislative action targets the potential misuse of AI in sensitive areas. Primary source →
Why does HB1951 matter?: This development signals increasing state-level focus on AI system outputs and deployer liability for harmful content. Primary source →
Who does HB1951 affect?: Organizations operating or deploying AI systems in Tennessee are within scope. This includes developers, owners, and operators of AI systems that may generate or transmit content related to sensitive topics, particularly those with conversational or advisory capabilities. Considerations extend to systems designed for mental health support, content moderation, or general-purpose AI where misuse could lead to harmful outputs. Primary source →
What are the key dates for HB1951?: Pending legislative process – not yet enacted. Primary source →
What is the current status of HB1951?: As of the last published update, HB1951 is at the "introduced" stage, with bill status "introduced". Primary source →
Where can I find the primary source for HB1951?: The primary source for the most recent update is at https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default?BillNumber=HB1951&ga=114. AIGI publishes the full citation chain plus every approved brief on this bill. Primary source →

Stay informed

Get briefs on every AI law, every morning.

Start 14-day trial →

Important — about this brief

This brief is published by AIGI as a regulatory intelligence service. It contains general information about AI laws, regulations, enforcement actions, and policy signals across jurisdictions. It is not legal, compliance, audit, or risk-management advice; it does not establish an attorney-client, advisory, or fiduciary relationship; and it should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional counsel applied to specific facts and circumstances. Where the brief identifies “Issues for Review,” those are observations of questions a reader in a particular role might raise with their own legal, compliance, or risk function — not recommendations to act. AIGI expressly disclaims liability for actions taken or not taken in reliance on this brief. Subscribers in regulated industries should consult licensed professionals authorized to practice in their jurisdiction.

Full disclosures →