What happened
Civic Media, republishing a report originally published by Wisconsin Watch, says Democratic Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate David Crowley announced an 11-point plan for state AI regulations. The proposal would limit chatbot access for children under 13, restrict addictive design features on minors’ accounts, increase penalties for AI-generated sexual images of minors, allow families to sue platforms over specified harms to children, and penalize companies that profit from scams or fraudulent advertising.
Civic Media’s report says Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, presented the plan to Wisconsin Watch during a gubernatorial contest against Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany. The reported measures include limiting AI chatbot apps for children under 13; banning infinite scrolling and autoplay on minors’ accounts; increasing penalties for distributing AI-generated sexual images of minors; and allowing families to sue AI platforms when their content promotes harms such as suicide or eating disorders.
The plan would also penalize technology companies that profit from scams or fraudulent advertisements and provide more funding for adult protective services and victim-support resource centers. The report says the proposals would require action by the Wisconsin Legislature. It does not provide proposed bill text, implementation dates, enforcement budgets, definitions of covered platforms, or access or pricing conditions because this is a regulatory proposal rather than a product release.
Source details: civicmedia.us ↗
Why it matters
The proposal moves Wisconsin’s AI debate beyond data-center construction and toward concrete rules governing how AI products affect children, families and older adults. If enacted, it could create state-level duties and liabilities for technology companies, but the report does not establish whether the measures would pass, how they would be enforced, or which AI services would be covered.
The reported plan is consequential because it assigns responsibility to both AI platforms and companies that use them, including in areas where harms may involve minors’ safety, mental health, sexual exploitation or financial fraud. It also connects with existing Wisconsin actions on sextortion and a possible settlement involving Meta’s alleged impact on teens’ mental health.
The report quotes Crowley saying he would not wait for federal action. It also says federal proposals requiring -incident reporting and labels for AI-generated content have not advanced. These developments are reported by Civic Media and Wisconsin Watch; the supplied material does not independently verify the candidates’ positions, the legal viability of the proposed rules, or the effectiveness of comparable measures.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
crm_get_transaction(id='4092').Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
The key next steps are whether Crowley wins the governor’s race, whether legislators introduce and approve the proposals, and how the plan’s obligations would be defined. The report also indicates that Republican candidate Tom Tiffany supports some related protections, including age verification, parental controls and accountability for platforms involved in sexual or inappropriate interactions with minors.
Tiffany’s reported position overlaps with parts of Crowley’s plan: he supports accountability for platforms that enable sexually explicit images or inappropriate chatbot conversations involving minors, as well as age verification, parental-consent protections and greater parental control. He also raised concerns about personal data reaching foreign adversaries. The candidates’ differing approaches, legislative support and the final scope of any bills remain unknown.
The report says President Donald Trump signed the Take It Down Act in 2025, criminalizing publication of real and AI-generated intimate images and requiring platforms to remove them after notification. It does not establish whether Wisconsin’s proposed penalties or civil claims would add materially different protections, nor whether state rules could conflict with federal law.