Up nextNext guide
Non-Consensual AI Imagery: Laws and Protections
Society
Society GUIDE
AI Chatbots, Children and Online Safety Laws
AI chatbots used by minors fall under several overlapping kinds of law.
On this page4 min read
Overview
There are children's privacy laws such as the US COPPA, platform safety regimes such as the UK Online Safety Act, and a new wave of companion chatbot laws such as California's SB 243. Together they push services toward age checks, disclosure that the user is talking to an AI, and protocols for self-harm conversations. These rules matter because companion-style chatbots can form intense relationships with young users, and lawsuits have linked some of those relationships to serious harm.
Deep Dive
No single law covers AI chatbots and children; several regimes overlap. Privacy: The US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, applies to online services directed at children under 13 and to operators with actual knowledge that they collect such children's data. They need verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information. The FTC finalized COPPA Rule amendments in 2025, tightening limits on third-party sharing and data retention. In September 2025 it also opened a 6(b) inquiry into how several major companies' companion chatbots affect children and teens. Platform safety: The UK Online Safety Act 2023 imposes duties on user-to-user and search services, and Ofcom has stated that generative AI chatbots can fall within scope. Since July 2025, services likely to be accessed by children must protect them from the most harmful content, including material encouraging suicide or self-harm, often through "highly effective" age assurance. Companion chatbot laws: California's SB 243, signed in October 2025 and effective January 2026, targets companion chatbots. Operators must disclose that the chatbot is AI where users could be misled, and maintain protocols to prevent content encouraging suicide or self-harm and to refer users to crisis services. For users known to be minors, the chatbot must periodically remind them to take a break and that it is not human, and the operator must take reasonable measures to prevent sexually explicit content. It also requires annual reporting and allows private lawsuits. New York enacted its own AI companion safeguards in 2025. Litigation: In Garcia v. Character Technologies, filed in 2024, a Florida mother alleged a Character.AI chatbot contributed to her son's death; in 2025 the court allowed most claims to proceed. Raine v. OpenAI, filed in 2025, makes similar allegations about ChatGPT. A common misconception is that a "13+" checkbox settles the matter. Many of these rules turn on actual knowledge, the likely audience, or reasonable measures.
Strategic Impact
Risk and safety
Catastrophic and everyday AI harms both depend on who understands the risks and who can act.
Clearer decisions
Public and professional literacy shapes whether strong safety policy is politically possible.
Cutting through hype
Clear explanations reduce capture by hype, lab PR, and vague ethics theater.
The Future of AI Chatbots, Children and Online Safety Laws
More US states are considering laws on companion chatbots, and there is debate over whether federal rules should preempt them. Courts are still deciding whether chatbot output counts as protected speech or as a product that can be defective. Early rulings have let some claims proceed, but the questions are far from settled. Companies have added parental controls and teen modes, and some have restricted open-ended chat for minors. Expect regulators to ask for evidence that age assurance and self-harm protocols actually work, not just that a policy exists.
Real-World Implementation
A homework-help chatbot aimed at children under 13 in the US must get verifiable parental consent before it collects a child's personal information, as COPPA requires.
A companion chatbot app used in California must tell users that it is not human when a reasonable person could be misled. It must also maintain a protocol that points users who express suicidal thoughts to crisis services.
A service that lets UK users share AI-generated content with each other is likely covered by the Online Safety Act. It may need highly effective age assurance to keep children away from the most harmful content.
The family of a teenager who died by suicide sues a chatbot maker. The suit argues that the product's design, not just what it said, was defective and caused foreseeable harm.
Risks & Guardrails
Treating existential risk as sci-fi while capability compounds.
Confusing surface product safety with alignment under high autonomy.
Leaving non-English and non-expert audiences with only low-quality sources.
Implementation Roadmap
Separate product harms, misuse, and loss-of-control / misalignment risks.
Ask what evidence would change your view on timelines and severity.
Prefer primary sources and concrete evals over marketing claims.
Identify one action path: career, policy, funding, or skills — not only awareness.
Keep Exploring
Free newsletter
Keep up with AI in 3 minutes a day
One short email each weekday with the three AI stories that actually matter. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the AI Chatbots, Children and Online Safety Laws quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
Frequently asked questions
What is AI Chatbots, Children and Online Safety Laws?
AI chatbots used by minors fall under several overlapping kinds of law. There are children's privacy laws such as the US COPPA, platform safety regimes such as the UK Online Safety Act, and a new wave of companion chatbot laws such as California's SB 243. Together they push services toward age checks, disclosure that the user is talking to an AI, and protocols for self-harm conversations. These rules matter because companion-style chatbots can form intense relationships with young users, and lawsuits have linked some of those relationships to serious harm.
Under COPPA, what must a covered service get before collecting personal information from a child under 13?
COPPA requires verifiable parental consent before a service collects personal information from children under 13, and the FTC enforces it.
Which UK regulator enforces the Online Safety Act and has said generative AI chatbots can fall within its scope?
Ofcom enforces the Online Safety Act and has stated that generative AI chatbots can be in scope.
Which requirement is part of California's SB 243 for companion chatbots?
SB 243 requires self-harm protocols with crisis referrals, AI disclosure, and extra protections for known minors. It does not ban chatbots for minors.
What does SB 243 require for users the operator knows are minors?
For known minors, the law adds break-and-not-human reminders and measures against sexually explicit content.
Why is a "13+" checkbox often not enough for compliance?
Legal duties often depend on what a service knows or should expect about who uses it, so self-declaration alone is weak.
Keep learning
Related guides
More guides picked for this topic