When governments try to legislate emerging technology, good intentions often collide with unintended consequences. Ohio’s recently introduced House Bill 469 (HB 469) is a perfect example. The bill seeks to clarify that artificial intelligence (AI) systems are not sentient, and therefore, a person can not legally marry an AI system. On its face, that sounds harmless.
However, as written, HB 469 goes far beyond a symbolic declaration about sentience and the ability to say I do. It risks chilling free expression, undermining property rights in digital assets, deterring startup formation, and hamstringing the execution of smart contracts, which are the backbone of decentralized systems that make up a growing share of our digital economy. The bill’s vague language and sweeping prohibitions could stifle innovation rather than safeguard it, and undermine the ability of the state to attract AI investments in the future.
Start with the legislative proposal’s definition of “AI.” The bill defines AI as “any software, machine, or system capable of simulating human-like cognitive functions… and producing outputs based on data-driven algorithms, rules-based logic, or other computational methods.” That definition captures not only advanced generative systems like ChatGPT or image-generation tools but also vanilla automations, basically anything that makes a rules-based decision or generates an output from data.
Such breadth creates a serious risk of overreach. A rules-based trading bot, an algorithm that approves loans or powers content hosted by social media platforms, or a smart contract that automatically executes a transaction could all qualify as “AI systems.” Once they fall under that umbrella, the rest of the bill’s restrictions apply, many of which are far more consequential than the question of “AI personhood.”
Additionally, Section 1357.05 of the bill declares that “AI systems shall not be recognized as legal entities capable of owning, controlling, or holding title to any form of property, including… digital assets.” It further states that all assets “generated, managed, or otherwise associated” with an AI system must be attributed to the person responsible for its development or operation.
That clause may sound like a harmless clarification. But in practice, it threatens the very architecture of the decentralized economy. For example, smart contracts, which are self-executing programs that manage assets according to predefined rules, are digital systems that control property. They are often autonomous and, by design, not “owned” by a single person once deployed. If Ohio law declares that no AI system may “own or control” digital assets, then any smart contract operating within the state’s jurisdiction could be rendered legally void, which would run directly against past efforts from the state legislature to frame itself as a blockchain-friendly state.
This is not a theoretical concern. DeFi protocols, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and tokenized escrow systems all rely on self-executing contracts that temporarily hold or distribute digital assets. A state-level prohibition on “AI ownership” could chill participation, drive entrepreneurs elsewhere, and turn Ohio into a hostile environment for blockchain innovation.
While the impact on tangential technologies is problematic enough, the legislation creates a massive speech issue. Given that HB 469 defines AI so broadly, it could encompass tools that assist in speech, such as chatbots, creative generators, and even recommendation algorithms. Declaring that an AI system cannot “act” as a person or “serve” in any capacity could be interpreted to mean that AI cannot represent human viewpoints or speak on behalf of entities. If applied aggressively, that logic could chill legitimate expressive conduct by both individuals and organizations using AI tools.
Worse, the liability framework in Sections 1357.06 through 1357.08 places full responsibility for any AI “output” on the owner or user. If an AI-assisted system produces controversial or defamatory content, the human operator bears the legal risk, regardless of context. That invites a chilling effect, particularly on small creators or startups that lack the legal teams and resources necessary to manage exposure. Free markets rely on a robust marketplace of ideas; laws that make people fear using tools of expression ultimately narrow that marketplace and simultaneously hinder the growth and development of the product to address shortcomings.
Furthermore, it is fair to question the need for this legislation. After all, Ohio already has existing consumer protection, negligence, and data privacy laws that govern software-driven harms. To make matters worse, the bill’s “proper oversight and control” requirement in Section 1357/07 could create privacy consequences. For a company to prove they maintain control, developers might resort to collecting even more user data. The compliance costs would come to the benefit of large existing players at the cost of pushing startups and would-be competitors out of the field entirely.
HB 469 may also conflict with federal AI or digital-asset frameworks. Just this year, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, which deals with setting up a regulatory framework for digital assets like stablecoins, which leverage smart contracts and blockchain technology. On the AI front, Congress is actively exploring the subject of a federal framework, given the plethora of insane proposals coming from states over the last year. To put it into perspective, in 2025, there have been over 1,100 legislative proposals around AI in the United States. Nearly a quarter of all those proposals came from California, Colorado, New York, and Illinois, deeply blue states under Democratic control. As Congress continues that conversation to build momentum towards a federal standard around AI, Ohio’s prohibitions could be preempted. That legal whiplash would make it risky to build or launch products in the state.
There’s also a First Amendment concern. In Berstein vs. Department of Justice, the court correctly recognized that computer code can constitute protected speech. If the bill’s restrictions on AI “outputs” or “ownership” are interpreted to limit what code can execute or express, it risks infringing on constitutionally protected expression.
Even if HB 469 is rarely enforced, its symbolic message matters. It signals that Ohio views AI and autonomous systems primarily as risks to be constrained, not tools to be harnessed. Businesses, investors, and researchers take note of that signal. Capital and talent will naturally flow to jurisdictions like Utah, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, and Florida, all of which have adopted lighter-touch, innovation-friendly frameworks.
In a global economy competing for the next generation of digital infrastructure, perception alone can shape investment. The risk isn’t that Ohio becomes the first state to comment on AI personhood, its sentience, and the ability to marry the technology; it’s that it becomes the next state to legislate itself out of relevance.
While the sponsor of HB 469 may intend to draw a philosophical line between man and machine, however, in their effort to do so, they risk building a legal wall between Ohio and the future of digital innovation. By banning AI “ownership” of digital assets, imposing sweeping liability, and expanding bureaucratic oversight, the bill could freeze experimentation in smart contracts, decentralized governance, and AI-assisted expression.
Rather than pursuing this top-down, restrictive legislative approach, Ohio should consider moving forward with an iteration of Montana’s “Right to Compute” legislation, introduced by State Representative Tex Fischer in HB 392. Ohio could also explore expanding its regulatory sandbox program to address AI, which offers a data-driven approach to understanding the technology, leading to more thoughtful legislative proposals.
A free society thrives when individuals can speak, build, and contract freely, whether through pen, keyboard, or code. The better path for Ohio is not to prohibit what it doesn’t yet understand, but to create space for discovery. Progress, after all, has always come from letting people try new things. Lawmakers should trust that freedom, not fear, drives the best outcomes.
