On August 4, 2024, Illinois became the first state in the nation to expressly prohibit AI systems from delivering mental health therapy. The new law – House Bill 1806 (HB 1806), the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act (WOPR) – took effect immediately. Enforcement rests with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which may impose civil penalties of up to 10,000 dollars per violation. This moves the issue of AI in therapy from the realm of ethics to the realm of compliance overnight.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐲, 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐈

The statute bars any person or entity, including internet-based AI, from providing, advertising, or offering therapy or psychotherapy unless the services are conducted by a licensed Illinois professional. This has significant implications for telehealth platforms that rely on multistate licensing models. The Act incorporates the definition of AI from the Illinois Human Rights Act, aligning behavioral health uses of AI with broader civil-rights protections.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 “𝐃𝐨 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬” 𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐈 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬

Even where a clinician is involved, HB 1806 forbids AI from performing core therapeutic functions. AI may not:

• make independent therapeutic decisions
• engage in any therapeutic communication with clients
• generate treatment plans or recommendations without clinician review and approval
• detect emotions or mental states

That last point is especially disruptive: many wellness apps rely on sentiment or affect detection, but for Illinois users these features must be disabled or geofenced.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭

The Act allows AI for administrative support and limited supplementary support, but only under the supervision of a licensed professional. If a therapy session is recorded or transcribed, the law requires informed written consent that explicitly discloses the use of AI and its purpose. Acceptance of general website terms of service is not enough. This provision forces companies to redesign consent flows for Illinois patients.

𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤: 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞

While civil fines under HB 1806 are meaningful, the bigger concern is civil liability. Plaintiffs may argue that violation of WOPR is negligence per se, transforming difficult malpractice or consumer protection claims into straightforward liability cases. Enterprise customers and payers are likely to respond by requiring strict contractual warranties of compliance with Illinois law. Lawyers should expect negotiations to focus on indemnities, audit rights, and feature disclosures.

𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐰𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞

Illinois has fired the opening shot, but the national conversation is only beginning. Other state legislatures are watching closely, and federal authorities may ultimately feel pressure to intervene with uniform standards. Until then, lawyers must advise clients to track developments, build compliance programs that can scale across states, and structure contracts to allocate risk in this rapidly shifting legal environment.

𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬

The Illinois law highlights the governance questions that every lawyer advising on AI should now raise:

• System boundaries: Has the product team mapped which AI functions are administrative versus therapeutic, and can they show regulators the difference?
• Human accountability: Are clinicians or licensed professionals demonstrably in control of decision-making, with logs and audit trails to prove it?
• Consent architecture: Do consent flows meet the statute’s specificity requirements, rather than relying on generic terms of service?
• Risk allocation: Do contracts with customers and partners fairly allocate liability, with warranties, indemnities, and audit rights tied to compliance?
• Cross-sector alignment: Are governance practices consistent with how Illinois – and likely other states – will regulate AI in adjacent areas like employment or housing?

These are not optional questions. They form the governance baseline for operating AI systems in highly regulated environments. Illinois may be the first jurisdiction to mandate them, but it will not be the last.