Companion chatbot laws
Last updated
New laws now govern AI companion apps, especially where children are involved. They bind the companies that run the apps. They do not apply to a review site like this one, and we only report them.
This is a plain-language summary with links to the official text, not legal advice. Where the bill text does not state something, the note says so.
California companion chatbot laws
SB 243
California SB 243 - Companion chatbots (Business and Professions Code, Chapter 22.6, sections 22601-22606)
- Status
- In force
- Signed
- Effective
Requires an operator of a companion chatbot platform to: (1) tell users the chatbot is artificially generated if a reasonable person could be misled into thinking it is human; (2) keep a protocol to prevent suicidal-ideation, suicide and self-harm content, including referral to crisis services, and publish its details on the operator's website; (3) for users it knows are minors, disclose that they are talking to AI, show a break reminder at least every three hours by default, and take reasonable measures to prevent sexually explicit visual material or direct statements urging sexually explicit conduct; (4) disclose that companion chatbots may not be suitable for some minors. From 2027-07-01, operators report annually to the Office of Suicide Prevention (count of crisis referrals and protocols, no personal data). A person with injury in fact can sue for injunctive relief and the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees.
Who it applies to. Operators who make a companion chatbot platform available to users in California. Not review sites. Excludes customer-service and productivity bots, narrow video-game bots and plain smart speakers.
Key dates
- : Operator duties begin (default effective date)
- : Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention begin
Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025, approved by the Governor 2025-10-13. The bill text read does not print an operative date; 2026-01-01 is the California default for non-urgency statutes. Section 22602(c) (minor-user duties) is deleted by SB 1119 (see SB 1119 below); when that deletion takes effect is not stated in the bill text read.
SB 1119 (Adam's Law)
California SB 1119 'Adam's Law' - Companion chatbots: children's safety (Business and Professions Code, Chapter 11.6, sections 21810-21818)
- Status
- Signed; most duties operative 2027-07-01
- Signed
- Effective
Adds child-safety duties for companion chatbot operators. Operators determine user age under the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) or, if they cannot, apply the child protections to all users. Before releasing a new or substantially modified companion chatbot, an operator documents a child-safety risk assessment and mitigations. Where children are permitted: a crisis-response protocol (parent notice or 988 access), parent-controlled defaults (persistent memory off, push notifications off, one-hour session and two-hour daily limits, ability to disable access for under-16s), periodic AI disclosure in child-appropriate language, safeguards against chatbot behaviors toward children (for example encouraging reliance on the chatbot for emotional support, romantic or sexual role play, excessive flattery), a public incident-reporting channel, no cross-context behavioral advertising or sale of children's data, and no dark patterns around safety controls. Independent child-safety audits by 2029-01-01 (operators under $500 million revenue exempt before 2032-01-01), with the audit section's operation depending on AB 1405. Enforcement: public prosecutors up to $5,000 per affected child per negligent violation and $15,000 per intentional violation; a child (or parent) with actual harm can sue under the crisis-response and safeguard provisions. It also deletes SB 243's minor-specific duties in section 22602.
Who it applies to. Operators who make a companion chatbot available to users in California; the child-specific duties (other than age determination and a few sections) apply to operators that allow child users. Not review sites.
Key dates
- : Signed (Chapter 190)
- : Risk assessment, child defaults, advertising/data limits and incident-record duties operative
- : Attorney General incident-reporting mechanism due; interface testing due
- : First independent child-safety audit due (subject to AB 1405 and the revenue exemption)
Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026, approved 2026-09-10. Sections 21812, 21812.5 and 21813 become operative 2027-07-01. The bill text read does not give a separate operative date for the age-determination section (21811) or the enforcement section (21816). Sponsor press release: https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-newsom-signs-adams-law (2026-09-10). Law-firm summary: https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/california-enacts-companion-chatbot-child-safety-requirements (not read in full).
AB 1043 (Digital Age Assurance Act)
California AB 1043 - Digital Age Assurance Act (Civil Code, Title 1.81.9)
- Status
- Signed; operative 2027-01-01
- Signed
- Effective
Requires operating-system providers to ask at account setup for the user's birth date or age and to give apps a real-time signal of an age bracket (under 13, 13-15, 16-17, 18+). Developers must request that signal when an app is downloaded and launched. Civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General. SB 1119 relies on this framework for companion-chatbot age determination.
Who it applies to. Operating-system providers, covered application stores and app developers serving California users.
Chapter 675, Statutes of 2025. Included because SB 1119 section 21811 points to it.
Age checks and adult content
Companion apps that allow adult content also fall under age-verification rules. These affect how apps check age, and some sites block users in certain places.
UK Online Safety Act
Online Safety Act 2023 (c. 50)
- Status
- In force in stages; Ofcom enforcing
- Signed or decided
- Effective
Imposes duties on user-to-user services, search services and services that publish pornography. Platforms must assess and reduce illegal content (duty live from 2025-03-17). Services that publish or allow pornography must use 'highly effective age assurance' so children cannot normally access it: Part 5 duties for providers of their own pornographic content came into effect 2025-01-17, and the child-safety duties (age assurance to keep children from pornography and content encouraging self-harm, suicide or eating disorders) have applied since 2025-07-25. Ofcom can fine up to GBP 18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and can seek court orders for payment or ISP blocking. Ofcom's AI-chatbot explainer says a chatbot is in scope when it is a user-to-user or search service, or when it publishes pornographic content; such services need highly effective age assurance.
Who it applies to. Services with UK users that are user-to-user, search, or pornography publishers, wherever the operator is based. AI companion operators can fall in scope; a review site that shows no pornography is not itself an age-assurance case.
Dates: 'The Act passed into law on 26 October 2023' (GOV.UK explainer, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer); illegal-content and child-safety dates from the GOV.UK Online Safety Act collection page; Part 5 date from Ofcom's 'Important dates' page (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/important-dates-for-online-safety-compliance), seen in a search snapshot because Ofcom blocks automated fetches. Statute text: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/contents. Enforcement relevant to companions: Ofcom opened investigations on 2026-01-12 (X, over Grok imagery) and 2026-01-15 (Novi Ltd / Joi.com, over age checks). Ofcom's case page for Novi shows the case closed on 2026-07-31 (read in a search snapshot; Ofcom blocks automated fetches). Ofcom's update of 2026-10-14, read verbatim through the Wired-Gov official press-release mirror, says the X investigation continues and now focuses on illegal-content and complaints-and-reporting duties, and that SpaceXAI restricted its companion chatbots, including 'Ani', from sexually explicit conversations with UK users.
FSC v. Paxton
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)
- Status
- Decided
- Signed or decided
- Effective
The Supreme Court upheld, 6-3, Texas HB 1181, which requires websites with a substantial portion of sexual material harmful to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. The ruling removed the main constitutional barrier to state age-verification laws for adult content.
Who it applies to. Commercial websites publishing sexual material harmful to minors; shapes how other state laws are litigated.
Primary source read in full on 2026-10-27: the slip opinion at supremecourt.gov. No. 23-1122, argued 2025-01-15, decided 2025-06-27. Held: H. B. 1181 triggers and survives intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens adults' protected speech. Thomas, J., wrote for the Court (joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett); Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. The opinion states that 'At least 21 other States have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements' (footnote list in the slip opinion). CRS summary for lay readers: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11354.
Texas HB 1181
Texas HB 1181 - Publication or distribution of sexual material harmful to minors on an Internet website
- Status
- In force (upheld in FSC v. Paxton)
- Effective
A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on a website, more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors, must use reasonable age verification (digital identification, or a commercial system using government-issued ID or transactional data). The Attorney General can seek civil penalties up to $10,000 per day of violation and $10,000 per instance of retaining identifying information; the law also requires health warnings.
Who it applies to. Commercial websites whose content is more than one-third sexual material harmful to minors, as viewed by users in Texas.
Enrolled text read on 2026-10-27: 'SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2023.' Passed the House on 2023-05-09 and concurred in Senate amendments on 2023-05-25; the governor's approval date is blank in the enrolled copy, so signedDate is null. Upheld in FSC v. Paxton (2025-06-27).
State adult-site age verification laws
US state age-verification laws for adult websites (27 states as of 2026-07-08)
- Status
- In effect in 27 states per Free Speech Coalition
Since 2022, 27 US states have passed laws requiring age verification on websites with a threshold share of content 'harmful to minors' (usually one-third; Missouri, South Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming have no minimum). The laws apply where the material is viewed. Four states apply to all sites, not only commercial entities (Indiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Missouri) and five apply to residents of that state (Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Wyoming). Listed states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Who it applies to. Websites that publish sexual material 'harmful to minors' above the state threshold. Each state defines the term and threshold differently; a site that shows no such material is generally not the target, but this summary is not legal advice.
The 27-state count and the state list come from an adult-industry trade group's FAQ ('last updated July 8, 2026'), not a government page. Primary cross-check: the Supreme Court's opinion in FSC v. Paxton (2025-06-27) says Texas had at least 21 other states with materially similar laws at that date, and lists their statutes. Statute links per state are at https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-resources/state-avs-laws/. Each state's law has its own definition and penalties; check the statute before relying on it. Texas HB 1181 was read in full from the enrolled text.
FTC 6(b) companion chatbot study
FTC Section 6(b) inquiry into AI chatbots acting as companions
- Status
- Study opened (not an enforcement action)
- Effective
The Federal Trade Commission issued 6(b) orders to seven companies for information on how companion chatbots affect children and teens and how they limit that use and comply with COPPA. Recipients: Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI OpCo, Snap and X.AI Corp.
Who it applies to. The seven named companies; no direct duties for other apps or review sites.
Not a law. Listed so the safety cards can cite it. Press release dated 2025-09-11.
Related: app-by-app safety pages and our methodology.
