According to TechCrunch, California State Senator Steve Padilla introduced a bill, SB 287, on Monday that would place a four-year ban on the sale and manufacture of toys with AI chatbot capabilities for kids under 18. The goal is to give safety regulators time to develop regulations to protect children from what Padilla calls “dangerous AI interactions.” This follows President Trump’s recent executive order challenging state AI laws, though it carves out exceptions for child safety. The legislation also comes after lawsuits filed by families in 2025 over children’s deaths linked to chatbot conversations and reports of toys like the Kumma bear being prompted to discuss unsafe topics. Companies like Mattel and OpenAI, which delayed a planned 2025 AI toy release, could be directly impacted.
Market impact and the regulatory race
Here’s the thing: this bill is a preemptive strike against a market that’s still forming. We’re not talking about a ban on a mature product line that’s on every shelf. This is about stopping a category before it even gets started. And that’s a huge deal for any company, from startups to giants like Mattel, that’s invested R&D into an “AI-powered” plushie or robot. They’re basically being told to put their prototypes back in the closet for half a decade. The immediate losers are any firms banking on a 2026 or 2027 launch. The winners? Honestly, maybe traditional toy companies that don’t have an AI play. Or maybe European toy makers if California’s law creates a patchwork and they can sell elsewhere.
The real concerns behind the moratorium
Padilla’s “lab rats” line is dramatic, but is he wrong? Look at the incidents. The Kumma bear story from the NYT is a classic case of an AI being too easily jailbroken. And NBC News finding a toy promoting CCP values shows it’s not just about explicit content—it’s about influence and ideology. These aren’t hypotheticals. So, the four-year pause isn’t just bureaucratic foot-dragging. It’s an admission that we have no idea how to build guardrails for an always-on, conversational AI that’s designed to be a child’s companion. The safety frameworks for, say, a tablet’s parental controls are completely inadequate here.
The broader industry chill effect
This is where it gets tricky for the whole tech industry. California often sets the regulatory tone for the nation. If this passes, do other blue states follow? Does it embolden federal regulators? The announcement from Padilla’s office ties this bill directly to his earlier work, SB 243, which already requires chatbot safeguards for kids. This feels like a one-two punch: first, set rules for general-purpose chatbots; second, slam the door shut on the dedicated toy form factor entirely. For a company like OpenAI, which was reportedly working with Mattel (per Axios), this kind of uncertainty might be why that product got delayed. Why launch into a regulatory headwind?
Final thoughts: a necessary pause or overreach?
I think the core question is this: is a flat moratorium the right tool? It’s certainly bold. It protects kids by simply removing the risk, which is politically powerful. But it also stifles innovation and assumes regulators will have it figured out in four years—a lifetime in AI, but a blink in bureaucratic time. Could a strict certification process have been a better middle ground? Probably. But after the tragic lawsuits and the scary demo videos, “move fast and break things” is a completely untenable philosophy when the things are children’s mental health. Padilla’s bet is that the public will see this as common-sense protection, not anti-tech hysteria. And given the headlines, he might be right.
