California Chatbot Therapy Ban Vetoed: What Licensed Clinicians Offer

Reviewed by: Matthew Sexton, LCSW

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 903, the bill that would have stopped a chatbot from being marketed as therapy, so what a licensed clinician can offer clients now rests on laws already in place, not on a new ban (office of Senator Steve Padilla, October 1, 2026). For California therapists, and for clinicians anywhere whose clients use therapy apps, the California rule in force is AB 489, operative since January 1, 2026, which makes it unlawful to use AI to deliver health services while implying a licensed professional is delivering them, so you can tell a prospective client plainly that you hold a license, answer to a board and make the clinical decisions yourself.

The evidence is the bill author’s announcement, two California licensing boards and a nonpartisan foundation; we opened each source on October 11, 2026, including the Board of Psychology advisory. It shows what the vetoed bill would have done and what the law still says. It does not show that any app is breaking the law. The next step: write two or three plain sentences about your own role.

Key takeaways

• The governor vetoed SB 903, which would have barred advertising therapy delivered by a companion chatbot (Senator Padilla’s office).
• AB 489 still bars using AI in a way that implies a licensed professional is providing the service (Board of Psychology).
• A separate law the governor signed, which takes effect next January, bars AI from independently performing clinical functions reserved for licensed professionals (California Health Care Foundation).

What did SB 903 try to do?

It tried to keep therapy, as a label and as a service, with licensed people. In its author’s words, the bill would have barred anyone from “offering or advertising therapy or psychotherapy in California if the services are provided by a companion chatbot” (Senator Padilla’s office).

The Board of Behavioral Sciences summarized the same bill for its members. It would have let a practice use AI only “in providing administrative support or supplementary support,” and it would have barred anyone from “advertising or purporting to offer psychotherapy services via companion chatbots” (Board of Behavioral Sciences memo).

The bill had wide support in the Legislature: it passed the Senate unanimously and the Assembly by a vote of 71 to 4 (Senator Padilla’s office).

Why did the governor veto it?

We could not open the veto message itself, so we rely on two reports of it. The California Health Care Foundation reports that Newsom said the bill’s definitions and scope “were so broad they would harm legitimate clinical tools never meant to replace psychotherapy” (California Health Care Foundation). The bill’s author says the veto message “claims the protections for patients and clinicians in this bill go too far” and that he plans to bring the bill back next session (Senator Padilla’s office).

What rules apply now, and what is coming?

The rule in force now is AB 489. The Board of Psychology explains that it is unlawful to use AI “to provide health information, advice, or services while representing, or allowing it to be understood, that such information is being delivered by a licensed professional when it is not” (Board of Psychology advisory). That covers “protected professional titles, clinical terminology, or other representations” that could make a consumer think the AI is a licensed provider.

The second is a separate bill the governor signed, which takes effect next January. Under it, “AI cannot independently perform any clinical function the law reserves for licensed professionals,” and businesses that offer health care chatbots are treated as health care providers under California’s medical confidentiality law (California Health Care Foundation).

So the veto means the proposed ban on marketing chatbot services as therapy never took effect (Senator Padilla’s office). The veto did not change the AB 489 rule against AI passing itself off as a licensed professional.

How do I explain to a client what a licensed clinician offers?

Talk about what you are, and leave the app alone. A prospective client needs to know who will be in the room with them. Three things are easy to say:

• You hold a license. An AI system may not use protected titles in a way that suggests it is licensed (Board of Psychology advisory).
• You answer to a board.
• You make the clinical decisions. Under the separate law that takes effect next January, AI cannot independently perform clinical functions reserved for licensed professionals (California Health Care Foundation).

Clinicians who wrote in support of the bill also named practical limits, including that chatbots can miss “subtle communication cues, such as tone and eye contact” (Senator Padilla’s office). That is their view, not a study.

What should I change on my profile?

Put your license type in the first line and name your state board. If you use AI for notes or scheduling, you can choose to say so. For psychologists licensed in California, the Board of Psychology already expects licensees to “clearly identify AI-generated content” (Board of Psychology advisory); other license types should check their own board.

Use the same sentences in a directory such as Couch Commons. For how other states draw this line, see AI therapy state law draws the line.

Takeaway

The bill’s ban on marketing chatbots as therapy did not become law. The AB 489 rule against AI posing as a licensed professional still stands. Tell clients, in your own words, that you are licensed, accountable and the one making the clinical calls.

Frequently asked questions

Can a chatbot call itself therapy in California?

SB 903 would have explicitly barred offering or advertising chatbot-delivered therapy, but the governor vetoed it, so that ban never took effect (Senator Padilla’s office). AB 489 still makes it unlawful to use AI to deliver health services while implying a licensed professional is delivering them (Board of Psychology advisory).

What would SB 903 have done?

It would have barred offering or advertising therapy when a companion chatbot provides it, and limited AI in psychotherapy to administrative and supplementary support (Board of Behavioral Sciences memo).

Will the chatbot therapy ban come back?

Senator Padilla says he plans to reintroduce legislation in the coming session (Senator Padilla’s office).

How do I explain my role to a client without criticizing their app?

Describe what you are: a licensed person, accountable to a state board, who makes the clinical decisions in their care. Leave the app out of it.

Sources

• Office of Senator Steve Padilla, Governor Newsom Allows Dangerous Chatbots to Provide Therapy, checked October 11, 2026.
• California Board of Psychology, Legislative Advisory on AB 489, checked October 11, 2026.
• California Board of Behavioral Sciences, Legislative Update memo, checked October 11, 2026.
• California Health Care Foundation, summary of the governor’s health care AI bill actions, checked October 11, 2026.

This article is general information for clinicians, not legal, billing or clinical advice.