In today’s column, I examine a new AI law enacted in Maine that legally restricts the use of AI as a mental health advisor in various distinctive ways. The stipulated restrictions are only with respect to the jurisdiction of Maine. This recently passed AI law is typical of what other U.S. states have also approved.
I’ve extensively analyzed, reviewed, and posted in my column a close assessment of numerous such AI mental health laws across the United States. In this Maine version, there are intriguing twists, including potential legal ambiguities that lawmakers and policymakers may not have intended. One of the ongoing challenges and difficulties with these rapidly crafted AI laws is that they often contain wording that inadvertently creates loopholes or otherwise isn’t as rigorously formulated as might be preferred. A notable problem is that AI makers, therapists, and those using AI can potentially slip around these AI laws by exploiting those legally inadvertent missteps or fall into legal hot water based on a reasoned interpretation, but an understanding that doesn’t match with what a prosecutor might interpret the AI law to signify.
Let’s talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).
AI And Mental Well-Being
As a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI. For an extensive listing of my well over one hundred analyses and postings, see the link here and the link here.
There is little doubt that this is a rapidly developing field and that there are tremendous upsides to be had, but at the same time, regrettably, hidden risks and outright gotchas come into these endeavors, too. I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance on an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes; see the link here.
AI Providing Mental Health Guidance
Millions upon millions of people are using generative AI as their ongoing advisor on mental health considerations (note that ChatGPT alone has over 900 million weekly active users, a notable proportion of whom dip into mental health aspects; see my analysis at the link here). The top-ranked use of contemporary generative AI and LLMs is to consult with the AI on mental health facets; see my coverage at the link here.
This popular usage makes abundant sense. You can access most of the major generative AI systems for nearly free or at a super low cost, doing so anywhere and at any time. Thus, if you have any mental health qualms that you want to chat about, all you need to do is log in to AI and proceed forthwith on a 24/7 basis.
There are significant worries that AI can readily go off the rails or otherwise dispense unsuitable or even egregiously inappropriate mental health advice. Banner headlines last year accompanied the lawsuit filed against OpenAI for their lack of AI safeguards when it came to providing cognitive advisement.
Today’s generic LLMs, such as ChatGPT, GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, Grok, CoPilot, and others (all known as general-purpose AI or GPAI), are not at all akin to the robust capabilities of human therapists. Meanwhile, specialized LLMs are being built to attain similar qualities (known as purpose-built AI or PBAI), but they are still primarily in the development and testing stages. See my coverage at the link here.
Various State Laws On AI Mental Health
A beehive of activity is taking place regarding crafting new AI laws. See my extensive coverage of state-level AI mental health laws at the link here. It is a matter on the minds of the public and in the hands of the state legislators. Some people ardently believe that AI and AI makers are being allowed to run amok. New AI laws are vitally needed to protect society from this onslaught of ubiquitous AI.
I previously examined a notable AI and mental health law passed last year by Illinois see the link here, one that was also enacted by Nevada see the link here, and one that was enacted by Utah see the link here, and so on. Those laws are scoped to prevail within their respective state boundaries. In that sense, these laws are applicable to AI usage within the particular state and do not bear on other states per se.
Big Picture Of AI Mental Health Laws
Not everyone agrees with this pell-mell rush of new AI laws, or at least they are concerned that these AI laws might go overboard. In the zeal to protect society, there is a chance that we might unduly restrict innovation and delay or undercut the benefits of leading-edge AI. The debate is ongoing and heated.
Readers might recall that I proposed a 7-step AI-law-making process that I believe could substantively help regulators to devise new AI laws that are on target and balanced; see my depiction at the link here. This has the added benefit of reducing what I refer to as AI-law legal debt. This refers to AI laws that, though they look shiny, contain hidden debt that must ultimately be paid. Legal glitches and hitches will eventually be found when AI laws are passed without suitable scrutiny and analysis. My prediction is that the slew of newly passed AI laws is likely to create a legal quagmire in the courts.
In terms of the AI laws in the United States, they have not yet stood the test of time, meaning that we won’t really know how well they stand up until there are court cases that test these new laws. It is too early to know whether the laws will survive legal battles waged by AI makers and other contenders. Just because AI laws are enacted does not mean they are proper. All sorts of improper provisions and constitutionally contentious stipulations are undoubtedly buried within these shiny new AI laws.
Congress has repeatedly waded into establishing an overarching federal law that would encompass AI. So far, no dice. The efforts have ultimately faded from view. Thus, at this time, there isn’t an overarching federal law devoted to these controversial AI matters. The big question will be to what degree a sweeping federal law would impact the numerous state-level AI laws. The odds are that many of the state-level laws would run afoul of a federal mandate, and a tsunami of legal cases would arise as a tussle between federal law and state law is undertaken. It surely will be a legal mess.
Maine Passes AI Mental Health Law
I will scrutinize the AI mental health law that was enacted by Maine, which occurred during the 132nd Maine Legislature, Second Regular Session 2026, in a bill known as H.P. 1397 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Providing Certain Mental Health Services,” and that was officially signed into law on April 13, 2026.
This law is quite similar to most other state-level AI mental health laws. The regulation somewhat stipulates that AI makers aren’t to provide AI in Maine that performs mental health advisement unless the AI is overseen by a professional therapist, but even that type of usage is rather clouded. In any case, the idea behind these AI laws is to try to keep the public at large from getting caught up in unfettered AI mental health advisement that improperly or inappropriately misguides them.
I will walk through a few of the key provisions of Maine’s AI law. You are encouraged to consider reading the entire law if the topic of AI mental health regulations is of particular interest to you.
What The Law Stipulates
Here is a key excerpt from Maine’s H.P. 1397:
- “Permitted use of artificial intelligence. A licensed professional may use artificial intelligence to assist in providing administrative support or supplementary support in therapy or psychotherapy services only if the licensed professional maintains full responsibility for all interactions, outputs and data use associated with the use of artificial intelligence and satisfies the requirements of subsection 3.”
The AI law says that licensed mental health professionals are allowed to use AI for mental health purposes, but that form of usage is heavily restricted. The restriction is that therapists are to use AI only as a tool if it aids in the “administrative support or supplementary support” of the therapists’ practice.
By administrative support, the AI law lists various examples such as managing schedules and appointments, processing billing and insurance claims, etc. Supplemental support is characterized by preparing and maintaining client records, analyzing anonymized client data, identifying referrals for client use, etc.
Prohibited Uses
The implication is that since only administrative and supplementary aspects are permitted, the use of AI as a psychotherapy tool is going to be somewhat out of bounds for therapists.
To garner additional clarity, we need to look at this portion of the AI law (excerpts):
- “Prohibition of use. A person may not provide, advertise or otherwise offer therapy or psychotherapy services, including through the use of Internet-based artificial intelligence, to the public unless the therapy or psychotherapy services are provided by a licensed professional.”
- “A licensed professional may not allow artificial intelligence to: A. Make independent therapeutic decisions; B. Directly interact with clients in any form of therapeutic communication; or C. Generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without review and approval by the licensed professional.”
You can see that in the first bullet point, there is a clarification that AI as a therapy tool can only be used by the public when it is under the therapy services of a licensed mental health professional. That’s the general indication that AI makers shouldn’t allow the public at large to use their AI for therapeutic guidance. It is only to be used in that manner by therapists.
Other AI laws have said the same, though in much clearer legal language that leaves no doubt about what the lawmakers intend.
Digging Deeper Into The Maine AI Law
As emphasized in the second bullet point above, even therapists are not freely able to use AI as a psychotherapy tool. Take a look at the subpoints. The therapist cannot allow such AI to directly interact with their clients. They cannot allow AI to make independent therapeutic decisions (i.e., only when jointly undertaken with the human therapist). And any AI-generated mental health recommendations or treatment plans must be reviewed and approved by the human therapist.
Some AI laws on mental health say that clients can directly access AI for therapy if the therapist is logged in and attentive during such AI usage (see my coverage at the link here).
Do you think AI usage would be permissible under the provisions of the Maine law?
Consult an attorney. A layman’s reading is that this would be prohibited since the client would be directly interacting with the AI as a therapeutic communication.
Layers Upon Layers
We need to consider how the AI law defines therapeutic communication since that’s a crucial element in the legal language. With most of these AI laws, the legal wording includes definitions for the terminology being used in the specific law.
Here is the Maine definition of therapeutic communications:
- “Therapeutic communication means any verbal, nonverbal or written interaction, conducted in a clinical or professional setting, that is intended to diagnose, treat or address a client’s mental, emotional or behavioral health concerns. Therapeutic communication includes, but is not limited to:”
- “(1) Direct interactions with clients for the purpose of understanding their thoughts, emotions or experiences;”
- “(2) Providing guidance, therapeutic strategies or interventions designed to achieve mental health outcomes;”
- “(3) Offering emotional support, reassurance or empathy in response to psychological or emotional distress;”
- “(4) Collaborating with clients to develop or modify therapeutic goals or treatment plans;”
- “(5) Offering behavioral feedback intended to promote psychological growth or address mental health condition.”
Snags Along The Way
There are plenty of potential twists to that language.
First, if a therapist opted to use AI to aid them in devising a therapeutic strategy, and did so without having the AI directly interact with their client, would that be a permissible act or a prohibited act?
You might be tempted to say that it would be permissible since the therapist is abiding by the provisions. They don’t have a client using the AI directly. They aren’t letting AI make any therapeutic decisions and are only seeing what the AI has to say. All in all, perhaps this is permitted.
A contrary viewpoint would be that it is prohibited. The reason it is prohibited is that the provision says that the therapist cannot use AI to provide guidance or therapeutic strategies, which it seems is how the therapist would be leaning into the AI. Also, the provisions say that therapists must make independent therapeutic decisions – is the act of conferring with AI an independent or dependent action?
You could argue that the therapist is indeed dependent on the AI in that case. You could also counterargue that the therapist is independent, in that no matter what the AI says, the therapist presumably is still going to be making up their own mind and deciding “independently” of whatever the AI says.
Loophole Of Surprising Nature
While you are contemplating that language conundrum, I have another consideration that might cause some surprises. Please sit down for this one. Recall that the prohibition says this subtle and barely noticeable aspect: “the use of Internet-based artificial intelligence”. Most would take that in stride. It seems innocuous. All the major LLMs, such as ChatGPT, GPT-5, Claude, Grok, Copilot, and Gemini, are customarily accessed via the Internet. No big deal.
It is a big deal.
Suppose I created a standalone AI that provides mental health advice, and it is not connected to the Internet. You load it as an app on your smartphone or desktop. It does not rely on the Internet. In that case, a smart or smarmy lawyer would insist that AI is not Internet-based and therefore falls completely outside the scope of this new AI law.
Maybe that what a mistaken loophole by the lawmakers. They might not have intended to make that a means of escaping the AI law. Perhaps they were assuming that all AI is Internet-based. Or maybe they were concerned that if they didn’t say Internet-based AI, they would inadvertently encompass other AI that shouldn’t be encompassed by this AI law. It is hard to know what they were thinking and whether they considered the ramifications of their wording.
The World We Are In
We will have to wait and see how this plays out and whether anyone tests the language of the Maine AI law in these regards. I’ll certainly keep you posted.
A final thought for now.
The famous Thomas Fuller made this notable remark: “A person in passion rides a horse that runs away with them.” Policymakers and lawmakers need to ensure that their passion for curtailing AI mental health usage is balanced by creating and passing AI laws that are legally clear-cut. Anything else will be a horse that rides to places and pastures they didn’t expect.
