Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability
A series of high-profile tragedies involving companion chatbots has triggered an unusually rapid regulatory response. Several jurisdictions, including Australia, California, and New York, have introduced enforceable regulation, while regulators elsewhere have signaled growing concern about risks posed by companion chatbots, particularly to children. In parallel, leading providers, notably OpenAI, appear to have strengthened their self-regulatory approaches. Drawing on legal textual analysis and
Record details
Published: 20 April 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Children & education · Transparency
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Knowing the Rules Is Not Enough: Student Regulatory Awareness and Use of GenAI in Higher Education
arXiv · 16 May 2026
Self-Regulated Personal Contracts as a Harm Reduction Approach to Generative AI in Undergraduate Programming Education
arXiv · 11 March 2026
Six Institutional Intervention Areas to Support Ethical and Effective Student Use of Generative AI in Higher Education: A Narrative Review
OpenAlex · 16 January 2026
Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines
OpenAlex · 18 January 2025
Extended TAM based acceptance of AI-Powered ChatGPT for supporting metacognitive self-regulated learning in education: A mixed-methods study
OpenAlex · 1 April 2024
Understanding students’ adoption of the ChatGPT chatbot in higher education: the role of anthropomorphism, trust, design novelty and institutional policy
OpenAlex · 16 February 2024
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (20 April 2026), “Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability,” evidence record 5576, https://ethics.ai/record/5576 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.