REGIONAL — Minnesota lawmakers are taking a broad look at how artificial intelligence is reshaping everyday life, from health insurance decisions to police investigations and even the prices consumers pay online, as a bipartisan group of legislators pushes a series of proposals aimed at placing guardrails on the rapidly evolving technology.
Five measures heard Monday in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee would regulate different aspects of artificial intelligence, addressing issues ranging from digital privacy and health insurance decisions to chatbot access for minors, disclosure requirements when people interact with AI, and the use of algorithms to dynamically set consumer prices.
The effort is being led by Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley, and Sen. Eric Lucero, R-St. Michael, an unusual bipartisan pairing that lawmakers say reflects growing concern about how the technology affects privacy, consumer protection, and public safety.
“I don’t hate AI,” Maye Quade said while introducing the bills. “But the consumerfacing AI that has been rolled out has been a five-alarm fire for our society with devastating and deadly consequences.”
Lawmakers say the proposals reflect growing concern that artificial intelligence is advancing faster than the laws designed to regulate its safe use.

Reverse warrants
and digital privacy
One of the most debated proposals, Senate File 1120, would prohibit government agencies from seeking “reverse warrants,” a type of court order that gathers large amounts of digital data to help identify potential criminal suspects.
Traditional warrants require investigators to identify a specific person or location and show probable cause before searching for evidence. Reverse warrants flip that process by collecting data from a broad geographic area and then working backward to determine whether any of the individuals identified might be suspects.
For example, investigators could ask a technology company to provide information on all cellphones that passed through a particular area during a certain time period, such as near the scene of a robbery. Anyone who happened to drive by the area could end up swept into an investigation simply because of their location.
The bill would also prohibit so-called reverse keyword warrants, in which investigators ask technology companies to identify users who searched for a particular word or phrase online. In those cases, companies such as Google may be required to provide information about accounts that searched for terms investigators believe might be connected to a crime. Civil liberties advocates argue the approach can pull in large numbers of people with no connection to an investigation simply because they searched for a common term.
Lucero said these approaches run counter to the constitutional principles behind traditional warrants.
Reverse warrants, he said, “are the antithesis” of the Fourth Amendment requirement that warrants identify a specific person or place to be searched.
Law enforcement officials, however, warned that eliminating the practice entirely could make some serious crimes harder to solve. Police say the data can provide investigative leads in cases where investigators initially have no suspect.

AI in health insurance decisions
Another proposal, Senate File 1856, would prohibit health insurers from using artificial intelligence to make prior authorization decisions without human review.
The issue is becoming increasingly relevant as insurers adopt automated systems to review claims. A recent industry survey found that 84 percent of health insurance companies are now using artificial intelligence or machine learning to review and approve claims.
Prior authorization is the process insurers use to determine whether a treatment or procedure will be covered. Critics say automated decision systems could increase the risk of wrongful denials or delay necessary care.
Sen. Liz Bolden, DFL-Rochester, a registered nurse, said introducing AI into those decisions could create new problems for patients already struggling with the complexities of health insurance.
“Imagine how you would feel if it was a robot who denied your coverage and got it wrong,” Bolden said. “Now you’re on the phone with another AI customer service representative trying to explain that a different robot messed up your care.”
The proposal would require that coverage decisions remain a human responsibility rather than being delegated entirely to automated systems.
Another measure, Senate File 1886, focuses on transparency when people interact with artificial intelligence.
The bill would require companies to disclose when a person is communicating with an AI system rather than a human. That could apply to customer service chatbots on websites or automated phone systems that use AI to answer questions.
Supporters say the requirement is intended to ensure people understand when they are interacting with software rather than another person, particularly as conversational AI systems become more sophisticated.
Chatbots and minors
Lawmakers also discussed Senate File 1857, which would prohibit companies from allowing minors to access conversational AI chatbots.
Supporters say the concern is not simply that chatbots provide information, but that they can engage in ongoing, personalized conversations that simulate human relationships. Some systems are designed specifically as digital companions, while others are general-purpose AI tools that can become conversational depending on how people interact with them.
Maye Quade said those interactions can encourage prolonged engagement and expose young users to harmful content or unhealthy behavioral patterns.
The proposal reflects growing concern nationally about the psychological effects of conversational AI systems on children and teenagers.

AI-driven pricing
The final proposal, Senate File 3098, would prohibit companies from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices for individual consumers.
Dynamic pricing algorithms can analyze large amounts of data about a customer’s behavior, location, or purchasing history to determine how much they are willing to pay.
That means the price one shopper sees online could be different from the price another person sees for the exact same product.
Supporters worry such systems could allow businesses to charge different prices to different customers based on factors such as urgency, browsing habits, or financial vulnerability.
Lawmakers said the goal is to prevent artificial intelligence from being used to quietly manipulate prices behind the scenes in ways consumers cannot see.

Growing national debate
The Minnesota proposals come as lawmakers across the country grapple with how to regulate artificial intelligence while the technology continues to evolve rapidly.
State legislatures introduced hundreds of AI-related bills nationwide in the past year, addressing issues ranging from deepfake images to consumer protections and government use of automated systems.
Maye Quade said the goal of the Minnesota bills is not to halt technological innovation but to establish basic protections as the technology becomes more embedded in everyday life.
“For decades, tech companies have told legislators and the public that damage and destruction from their unregulated products are necessary byproducts of growth and innovation,” Maye Quade said. “We can no longer accept that narrative.”
The bills remain in committee and could undergo further revisions as lawmakers continue discussions with industry groups, law enforcement officials, and privacy advocates.