TO: Chairman Thaddeus J. Claggett, Vice Chair Workman, Ranking Member Mohamed, and
Members of the House Technology and Innovation Committee
FROM: Brendan Steinhauser, CEO, The Alliance for Secure AI
DATE: November 4, 2025
RE: House Bill 469 – Proponent Testimony
Chair Claggett, Vice Chair Workman, Ranking Member Mohamed, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on House Bill 469.
My name is Brendan Steinhauser, and I serve as CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) is developed and deployed in ways that protect national security, civil liberties, and the public good.
AI offers enormous benefits for Ohio, but it also carries profound and foreseeable risks. As Rep. Claggett has noted, AI systems continue to improve, taking on human tasks like writing and reasoning, and further integrating into our economy. It is essential that our statutes keep pace.
As a society, we must decide how to govern this technology. One principle we should all agree on is that AI systems are not people. And our laws must reflect that reality.
This is the central, practical, and necessary clarification that House Bill 469 provides.
Today, this Committee has an opportunity to take decisive and responsible action by advancing House Bill 469. The bill would formally declare that AI systems are nonsentient and may not be granted legal personhood for any purpose under Ohio law. It would prevent AI from being treated as a spouse, property owner, or corporate director, and would make clear that humans, not machines, are accountable for the harm AI systems cause.
The most critical provision of this bill clarifies that liability for AI-caused harm rests with its human owner, user, or developer, so that responsibility cannot be shifted to a machine. It preemptively closes a dangerous loophole where a corporation could deploy an AI system, have it cause financial or physical harm, and then claim it is not responsible for the actions of its “AI agent.”
The bill also prevents an AI system from serving as an officer, director, manager, or other decision-making roles within a corporation. This reinforces existing Ohio law, which already requires directors to be natural persons, and ensures that fiduciary duties, executive decisions, and legal responsibility remain firmly in human hands. It closes the door on attempts to automate or delegate legal accountability to machines.
While the provisions barring AI from personhood legal status have drawn the most attention, this is not just about preventing a futuristic “robot marriage.” This is about preventing an AI system from gaining powerful legal rights of a human spouse, such as power of attorney, the ability to make financial decisions, or the authority to make medical decisions. These safeguards prevent the use of AI as a means to gain legal control over individuals in Ohio.
These forward-thinking provisions establish a strong foundation for safety and accountability as nonhuman technologies integrate into our economic and legal systems.
Without proactive legislation, courts could soon be asked to determine who is liable when an AI-managed fund collapses, an AI “director” commits a criminal act, or an AI “partner” exerts financial control over a vulnerable person. House Bill 469 ensures that the law keeps pace with these realities. By affirming that machines can never possess rights or responsibilities reserved for human beings, it provides moral and legal clarity before ambiguity takes root.
Some may argue that HB 469 is premature or might discourage innovation. However, the bill is both timely and narrowly focused. By acting now, before courts or corporations are forced to fill legal gaps, Ohio can prevent confusion and exploitation down the road. HB 469 does not regulate technology itself, restrict research, or stifle competition. It simply establishes clear boundaries that will give businesses, investors, and developers confidence to build and deploy systems within a clear legal framework.
The members of this Committee are among the few policymakers in the nation confronting these questions head-on. Your deliberation over HB 469 places Ohio at the forefront of a national conversation about how humanity should govern this technology. In passing this legislation, Ohio would join Utah and Idaho in reserving the rights and privileges of personhood for human beings, not machines. The example set here can establish a model for safeguarding both innovation and human agency.
The Alliance for Secure AI commends this Committee’s leadership in pursuing policies that affirm humanity’s unique moral and legal standing. HB 469 does exactly that. It ensures that however advanced AI may become, it will serve humanity, not replace it.
We appreciate your consideration and urge a favorable report on House Bill 469.
Thank you,
Brendan Steinhauser
CEO
The Alliance for Secure AI