Pennsylvania Act 87 of 2026 would, once in effect, require mandated reporters to report suspected AI-generated child sexual abuse material and hazing

Key takeaways

• The enacted text names "artificially generated child sexual abuse material" and, once effective, would apply the duty whether or not a minor created it.
• Once effective, reports would go to the Statewide toll-free number under section 6332 or by electronic submission under section 6305, and the Department would transmit a copy to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
• Once effective, the Act would add hazing and aggravated hazing to the same duty, which is unrelated to AI.
• The act takes effect in 90 days, so there is a short window before the duties would apply.

What does Act 87 require when a reporter suspects AI-generated abuse material?

It adds a new subsection (e), "Additional reporting", to 23 Pa.C.S. 6311. Under the amendment, once it takes effect in 90 days, a mandated reporter enumerated in subsection (a) would report through the Statewide toll-free number or by electronic submission if the reporter "has reasonable cause to suspect" the existence of child sexual abuse material or artificially generated child sexual abuse material. The text applies "regardless of whether the material was created, displayed or exhibited to others by a minor." Where material meets the incorporated definition, the duty would therefore not fall away because the creator is a minor.

The text defines "artificially generated child sexual abuse material" and "child sexual abuse material" by reference to 18 Pa.C.S. 6312(g). We did not open that definition, so we do not describe what kinds of AI output it reaches. After a report, once effective, the text would direct the Department to transmit a copy to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and it may transmit a copy to the appropriate county agency. The fiscal note names the Department of Human Services and states no fiscal impact.

What else does the Act change, and is it AI-related?

Two further changes sit in the same bill. In section 6304(f), which covers child-on-child contact, the list of acts subject to the reporting requirements would, once effective, gain (G) unlawful dissemination of an intimate image under 18 Pa.C.S. 3131, (H) sexual abuse of children under 18 Pa.C.S. 6312, and (I) hazing under 2802 or aggravated hazing under 2803. Section 6311(c), the provision for staff of institutions and schools, would once effective cover a person required to report under subsection (b) or (e) in that staff capacity, with the stated duty to report immediately and then notify the person in charge. Whether an AI-generated image falls within 3131 or 6312 depends on those sections, which we did not open.

Once effective, the hazing duty and the 6304 additions would not be AI provisions. The AI-specific language is confined to the new section 6311(e).

When does it take effect, and how did it pass?

The text provides that the act takes effect in 90 days. The bill history shows a unanimous path. The sponsors' co-sponsorship memo of 29 April 2026 cites a Lancaster County private school case in which, the memo says, students made sexually explicit deepfake images of classmates using artificial intelligence, and a later Bucks County case; those are the sponsors' account, not findings in the Act.

The Senate amendment added hazing to the bill.

What should schools, childcare providers and counsel do now?

The 90-day window is a planning period. The amendment extends reporting coverage to a further category of material, so the main work for institutions is likely internal procedure. These are the desk's suggestions, not requirements in the text.

• Confirm which staff are mandated reporters under section 6311(a) and consider giving them the channel the text names (Statewide toll-free number or electronic submission) in writing.
• Review any policy that has staff escalate suspected AI-generated imagery to an administrator before reporting, against the reporter's own duty under subsection (e) once it takes effect.
• Consider addressing AI-generated and student-created images in incident-response and student-conduct policies, in light of the "created by a minor" language.
• Ask counsel to read 18 Pa.C.S. 3131 and 6312 and the existing penalty provisions against your facts, since this article did not.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the bill page and history, the full text of Printer's No. 4056 and No. 3323, Senate amendment A04633, the Senate Appropriations fiscal note, and the sponsors' co-sponsorship memo, on 2026-10-25.

What we did not open: 18 Pa.C.S. 6312(g), 3131, 2802 and 2803; the list of mandated reporters in 23 Pa.C.S. 6311(a); sections 6305, 6313 and 6332; any penalty provision for failing to report; any press release; and a codified or session-law copy of Act 87 itself. We read the Printer's No. 4056 text from the HTM conversion, which does not show strike-through, and cross-checked its content against amendment A04633 and the fiscal note. The effective date is stated as a period and we did not compute a calendar date.

What we refuse to claim: that the Act creates a new penalty, that it reaches any particular AI tool or image type, or that any named school case is governed by it.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Louisiana Act 892 on the definition of AI child sexual abuse materials
• Wyoming HB 0102 on AI-generated child sexual abuse material and related crimes
• Take It Down Act and FTC enforcement on deepfake intimate images
• eSafety advisory on school imagery and AI deepfakes