EdLaw nat/us/state/ca/chatbot-toys/README.md

language: en · status: enacted · last checked: 2026-10-13

Toys with companion chatbots (SB 867, 2026)

Enacted, not yet in effect. SB 867 (Stats. 2026, ch. 189), approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 10 September 2026, amends the definitions of the companion chatbot law (§22601) to add a definition of toy, and adds §22604.5: a moratorium on manufacturing, selling or offering to retailers "any toy that includes a companion chatbot". The moratorium is self-repealing: it "shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed" (§22604.5(b)). The act has no effective-date clause, so it takes effect on 1 January 2027 under Cal. Const. art. IV, §8(c)(1): "a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute".

Applicability to EdTech

The moratorium reaches physical products, not software. "Toy" means "a physical product designed, marketed, or manufactured for use in play by children under 16 years of age" (§22601(g) as amended), and the prohibition is: "No person shall manufacture, sell, or exchange, possess with intent to sell or exchange, or expose or offer for sale or exchange to any retailer any toy that includes a companion chatbot" (§22604.5(a)). Whether a device is caught turns on two definitions together: whether it is designed, marketed or manufactured "for use in play" by children under 16, and whether what it includes is a companion chatbot as defined in §22601(b), which keeps the three exclusions of the current law, including the stand-alone voice-assistant device (§22601(b)(2)(C)). A hardware device for learning that holds a conversation is the case the two definitions have to be read against; the act itself draws no line between play and learning.

Key obligations at a glance

Enforcement

The act adds no enforcement provision of its own. §22604.5 sits in Chapter 22.6, where the existing private right of action covers "a violation of this chapter" — see the companion chatbot law, §22605.

Contents

Document Covers
SB-867.md The chaptered bill in full: Legislative Counsel's Digest; SEC. 1 amending §22601; SEC. 2 adding §22604.5

Licence

The corpus reproduces the chaptered text of SB 867 and the Legislative Counsel's Digest verbatim from the California Legislature's own database. Statute text enacted by a state legislature is outside copyright under the government edicts doctrine. In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. 255 (2020) (slip opinion, read 2026-10-01), the Supreme Court held: "Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties." The Legislature's XML carries the comment "Copyright © Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of California."; the Bureau is the Legislature's own drafting office, and the same opinion holds that "Because Georgia’s annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection." The bulk-export readme (pubinfo_Readme.pdf, read 2026-10-13) states no copyright notice or terms of use.

Conditions: none attach. The corpus names the official source in Sources and in each section's {.meta} provenance line, and Meta describes what it changed (anchors added, nothing reworded).

Sources