By
Reviewed by
In short
Nevada's AI therapy ban prohibits companies from offering AI programmed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care or claiming AI can provide it. AB 406 also restricts clinical AI use by licensed providers and public schools. Self-help products have an exception when they do not claim to provide professional care. Administrative uses have separate requirements, including human review and privacy protections.
What Nevada's AI mental health law does
Governor Joe Lombardo signed Assembly Bill 406 on June 5, 2025, and its provisions took effect on July 1, 2025. Nevada acted before Illinois enacted its better-known restrictions. The enrolled text is the primary source for the scope of the ban and its exceptions. AB 406 does three big things. It prohibits companies from making AI systems available to Nevadans when those systems are designed to provide services that would constitute the practice of professional mental or behavioral health care. It prohibits representing that an AI system is capable of providing that care. And it restricts how both schools and licensed providers can use AI around patients and students.
Legislators framed the bill as consumer protection. A person in distress who reaches for help should not end up with unsupervised software holding the conversation, and a company should not be allowed to imply otherwise. The concerns behind the vote are the same ones now driving laws in other states: chatbots are not built to recognize or safely handle a suicidal crisis, they hold no license and answer to no board, and their marketing can leave a vulnerable user believing they are receiving real clinical care from a credentialed professional.
The law also protects professional titles. Under AB 406, an AI system cannot present itself with terms like therapist, psychotherapist, counselor, psychiatrist, or doctor in a mental health context, because those titles belong to licensed humans. A chatbot that markets itself as a therapist to Nevada users is exactly what the statute was written to stop.
Violations of the core prohibitions carry a civil penalty of up to $15,000 per violation under the enrolled law. Nevada's Division of Public and Behavioral Health holds investigative authority, and licensed providers who break the rules face discipline from their own licensing boards on top of it.
Residents looking for everyday self-help can use the stress level test for educational reflection and a mood tracker to organize observations before an appointment. Neither determines a diagnosis or establishes that software satisfies Nevada law. The AI therapy guide explains the wider category, including the difference between consumer support tools and licensed care.
Nevada moved before almost anyone else and wrote the stiffest fine of the early wave. After reading the bill alongside the state's school guidance, the section that stays with me is the one about kids. Regulators were thinking about chatbots in school counseling offices long before most parents were.
What the law does not do
Headlines about a Nevada AI therapy ban can make it sound like every mental health app went dark in the state. That is not what happened. The law targets prohibited programming and representations, with an express exception for self-help products that do not purport to provide professional care. General wellness and self-help apps, the kind that guide journaling, teach breathing exercises, track mood, or deliver psychoeducation, can fit the self-help exception when their actual functions and claims stay within it. A wellness label alone does not establish compliance.
Personal use is untouched too. AB 406 regulates companies offering services and professionals delivering care. It says nothing about what an individual Nevadan chooses to type into a general-purpose chatbot at home. If you use an AI assistant to think out loud, journal, or rehearse a hard conversation, the relevant distinction is whether a company offers prohibited services, rather than whether you mention an emotion to software.
Licensed providers keep a working lane as well. A Nevada therapist or psychiatrist can use AI for administrative support, things like billing and drafting notes from sessions, provided they independently review the output for accuracy. What they cannot do is use AI in connection with delivering care directly to a patient. Providers must also comply with applicable privacy and health-record laws. Illinois has its own rules for administrative and supplementary support, so permission in one state does not establish permission in another.
The school provisions, and why they matter
The part of AB 406 that most other states have not copied is its reach into public education. Nevada public schools may not use AI to perform the functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist, or school social worker where those duties relate to student mental health. Legislators were reacting to a real temptation: understaffed districts quietly letting software absorb counseling work that belongs to licensed humans.
The Nevada Department of Education spelled out the line in guidance issued on April 8, 2026. School mental health staff may use AI for administrative tasks such as scheduling appointments, transcribing notes with human validation, and summarizing meetings into action items. They may not use AI for sentiment analysis of a student's journal entries, for scoring a student's risk of self-harm, or for generating therapeutic responses or advice for a student. Schools must also keep a local registry of approved AI tools that complies with federal student privacy law.
The guidance closes on the principle that runs through the whole statute: AI should never be used to judge or assess a student's mental state, because mental health services need to remain a human-centered process. The rule matters because school counselors are stretched thin across the country, and a district under budget pressure is exactly where an AI shortcut would first look tempting. Nevada decided, ahead of nearly everyone, that the shortcut is off the table.
Parents can ask the school to identify the approved administrative tool, explain what student information it processes, and name the staff member checking its output. The education memorandum requires records explaining why a registered tool is allowable to be available for audit and accountability. It also directs employees to report bias, misinformation, or inaccuracy to the local education agency's IT administration immediately. Source: Nevada Department of Education guidance, cited below.
How Nevada compares to Illinois
Nevada and Illinois reached the same destination by slightly different routes. Nevada acted first, with AB 406 effective July 1, 2025, while the Illinois AI therapy ban was signed August 1, 2025. Nevada's maximum civil penalty is higher, $15,000 per violation against $10,000 in Illinois. Enforcement sits with health authorities and licensing boards in Nevada, while Illinois runs enforcement through its Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
The substance overlaps heavily. Both states prohibit AI from delivering therapy to the public, both prohibit marketing AI as a therapist, and both preserve administrative AI use for licensed professionals. Nevada's distinctive additions are the explicit school provisions and its direct restriction on providers using AI in the course of delivering care to a patient. Illinois frames its rule around who may offer therapy services to the public; Nevada also polices how licensed professionals themselves use the technology. Illinois also expressly addresses supplementary support and consent. Read the Illinois act separately before assuming that its permitted workflows match Nevada's.
Not everyone thinks Nevada got it right. The Reason Foundation has criticized AB 406 as regulation driven by fear rather than analysis, noting that lawmakers rejected an exception for federally certified tools and that the legislature may not revisit the question until a later legislative session even as the technology improves. Supporters counter that accountability for mental health care should never have been up for delegation in the first place. The practical question is how the enacted language applies to a particular feature. Commentary helps explain the debate, while the statute and official guidance establish the rules that providers and developers must examine.
What it means for Nevada residents
If you live in Nevada, the practical effect is a clearer standard for professional accountability. Professional services must comply with the applicable credentialing rules, and no company can legally sell you a chatbot as a therapist. You can still use wellness apps, still chat with general AI assistants, and still use AI to reflect, journal, or practice coping skills between sessions.
A few habits are worth keeping. Check how an app describes itself, because a tool that implies it provides mental health care to Nevadans may raise a compliance concern, and that is a signal about the company behind it. Read privacy policies, since these tools collect deeply personal data and Nevada's law does not add Utah-style data protections, so an app's terms need to be read alongside applicable privacy law. And keep AI in the support lane: it can help you get to care, organize your thoughts before an appointment, and stay steady between sessions, and it is never the care itself.
If you are in crisis or thinking about suicide, call or text 988 (US Suicide & Crisis Lifeline), available 24/7. No chatbot, in any state, is built for that moment.
The practical takeaway
AB 406 is best read as Nevada drawing an accountability line early and drawing it hard. AI can schedule, transcribe, summarize, and support. It cannot hold a license, so in Nevada it cannot practice, and nobody can pretend otherwise in their marketing.
For the wider picture, our state-by-state map of AI therapy laws tracks which states ban AI therapy and which merely regulate it, and the Illinois explainer covers the law most likely to shape what other legislatures copy next. If you use AI mental health tools in Nevada, check the provider's qualifications and how each AI feature is described. Legal restrictions do not independently verify a service's safety, privacy, or compliance.
A December 11, 2025 White House executive order directed the Justice Department to assemble a task force challenging state AI laws it considers obstructive, and the Commerce Department to tie federal funding to a lighter-touch approach. As of mid-2026, that order had not preempted or blocked Nevada's AB 406 or any other state AI law; whether it can is a question for the courts to work through over time. Until a court says otherwise, AB 406 remains enforceable and binds a provider wherever its Nevada patients live. Source: Acuity News, State AI Mental Health Laws 2026: Multistate Compliance Guide, cited below.
How to check a specific app or provider
Save the exact wording of an app's claims and the name of the company offering it. Compare what the feature actually does with the statute's professional-care definition and self-help exception. An app-store listing or disclaimer cannot settle that question by itself. If a feature claims to assess or treat a disorder, ask the company how it complies with Nevada law.
Ask a clinician whether software processes your session, what administrative task it performs, and how the clinician checks the output. For a school tool, request the district's approved-tool policy and the human contact responsible for student support. Nevada's education guidance separates permitted administrative help from prohibited mental-state judgments and advice.
If you suspect misleading professional claims, preserve the relevant screen and date without posting private health information publicly. The Division of Public and Behavioral Health has investigative authority under the law; licensing concerns also belong with the relevant professional board. A complaint process is separate from arranging timely care for yourself or a family member.
When asking about an administrative feature, describe the task precisely: organizing an existing session note differs from generating advice for a patient. The enrolled law specifically requires independent accuracy review for AI output used in billing and session-file or note management. It separately requires compliance with applicable privacy and electronic-record security laws. Ask who corrects an inaccurate summary and how that correction reaches the patient record. Source: Nevada AB 406 enrolled text, cited below.
