{"id":5327,"date":"2026-08-10T18:11:04","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T18:11:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/?p=5327"},"modified":"2026-08-10T18:11:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T18:11:05","slug":"how-policymakers-should-and-shouldnt-address-chatbot-safety-for-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/?p=5327","title":{"rendered":"How Policymakers Should (and Shouldn\u2019t) Address Chatbot Safety for Children"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Alex Ambrose
\n|
\nAugust 10, 2026<\/p>\n

Policymakers are rushing to regulate AI chatbots. But they should carefully weigh the best approaches to enable safe usage while meaningfully protecting children<\/a> from harm<\/p>\n

KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h2>\n

Every wave of new technology triggers a legislative reflex to \u201cprotect the children,\u201d and AI chatbots are no different. But while some approaches would be beneficial, others would be ineffective or counterproductive.
\nThe best ways for policymakers to address chatbot safety for children are to focus on transparency, targeted safeguards, and empowering parents.
\nMany bills to protect children from chatbots harms err by simply transplanting ineffective social media approaches such as age verification, content restrictions, and blanket bans.
\nWith nearly 100 state chatbot safety bills introduced so far, there is a risk that the United States may soon have a patchwork of regulation that would complicate compliance for AI platforms and fail to meaningfully protect children from harm.
\nPolicymakers should avoid moral panic about chatbots and AI and instead promote meaningful parental controls, industry standards, and targeted safeguards that address documented harms without cutting children off from beneficial tools.
\nKey Takeaways<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways 1<\/p>\n

Introduction.3<\/p>\n

Chatbot Policy \u201cDo\u2019s\u201d 4<\/p>\n

Chatbot Policy \u201cDon\u2019ts\u201d 9<\/p>\n

Conclusion.13<\/p>\n

Endnotes 14<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

Every wave of new technology triggers a legislative reflex to \u201cprotect the children.\u201d[1] In seeking solutions to real or alleged harms to children on social media, policymakers have turned to flawed policies\u2014such as age verification and outright bans\u2014that cut children off from social media\u2019s benefits instead of actually targeting its risks. Legislators are now recycling this playbook for artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, or systems that process user inputs to respond with simulated conversation.[2] But the playbook doesn\u2019t work for either AI or chatbots. And, at the same time, recent unfortunate events such as child suicides, violent shootings, and radicalization of young people establish a clear need for effective chatbot regulations regarding children\u2019s online safety.[3] But importing ineffective social media frameworks to chatbots fails to properly address children\u2019s safety concerns while, at minimum, inconveniencing adult users.<\/p>\n

Like many proposed and enacted social media regulations, proposed chatbot regulations miss the mark by relying on age verification, nebulous definitions of \u201charm,\u201d and the \u201conline addiction\u201d narrative. Not only are social media and AI-chatbot platforms vastly different, but these methods are also overly restrictive and carry a host of negative consequences<\/p>\n

As of August 2026, there are nearly 100 state chatbot-specific bills and several federal bills in the United States.[4] Policymakers should resist the urge to rush to regulate and instead carefully weigh various approaches that enable safe usage while meaningfully protecting children from chatbot-related harm<\/p>\n

Table 1: Summary of recommendations for policymakers to address chatbot safety for children<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u25aaUtilize a child flag system<\/p>\n

\u25aaEncourage meaningful parental controls to mitigate risks<\/p>\n

\u25aaEncourage digital literacy<\/p>\n

\u25aaRequire paid content disclosures<\/p>\n

\u25aaCreate clear and distinct definitions, including carveouts<\/p>\n

\u25aaSet clear standards for licensed AI professional services<\/p>\n

\u25aaAddress child suicidal ideation conversations<\/p>\n

\u25aaDiscourage misuse of fiction<\/a>al characters popular with children<\/p>\n

\u25aaFund more research<\/p>\n

\u25aaEncourage industry best practices for self-regulation<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u25aaRequire age checks for all users<\/p>\n

\u25aaRestrict content<\/p>\n

\u25aaPerpetuate the \u201caddiction\u201d narrative\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u25aaRely on warning labels to educate users on harms<\/p>\n

\u25aaBan targeted advertising<\/p>\n

\u25aaBan chatbots for all minors<\/p>\n

\u25aaScapegoat sycophancy<\/p>\n

\u25aaRegulate time limits<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Chatbot Policy \u201cDo\u2019s\u201d<\/p>\n

Effective chatbot regulation should focus on transparency, targeted safeguards, and empowering parents. The following recommendations build a framework that protects children without cutting them off from technology or minimizing its effectiveness:<\/p>\n

Do Utilize a Child Flag System<\/h2>\n

Congress should pass legislation requiring device operating systems to create an opt-in \u201ctrustworthy child flag\u201d for user accounts, available when first setting up a device and later in a device\u2019s settings, that signals to apps and websites that a user is underage and requiring apps and websites that serve age-restricted content to check for this signal for their users and block underage users from this content.[5] This approach allows parents to only have to set their child\u2019s age once per device. Moreover, it does not force chatbots to collect additional personally identifiable information. While chatbots often do collect personal information, forcing them to do so is a backwards approach to protecting children. The child flag system would solve children\u2019s safety concerns without creating additional privacy concerns.[6]<\/p>\n

Do Encourage Meaningful Parental Controls to Mitigate Risks<\/h2>\n

The solutions to many of the issues policymakers have with youth and chatbots\u2014such as access to violent and sexual content, copious time spent on the platforms, and developing parasocial relationships (one-sided emotional attachments)\u2014should start with parents.[7] Meaningful, accessible, and transparent parental controls account for the differences between families\u2019 approaches to technology and online content and children\u2019s needs much more effectively than such one-size-fits-all solutions as bans or sweeping age or content restrictions do. Though flawed, the Children\u2019s Health, Advancement, Trust, Boundaries, and Oversight in Technology Act (CHATBOT Act) introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) in April 2026, rightfully emphasizes parents\u2019 role in customizing their child\u2019s chatbot experiences by allowing parents to set time limits, adjust privacy settings, and disable rewards and push notifications.[8] Platforms should implement meaningful controls\u2014such as time limits, privacy settings, and content filters\u2014that are easy for parents to understand and access and encourage their use.<\/p>\n

At the same time, there are certain design features intended to keep youth engaged in online experiences\u2014not just with chatbots\u2014such as loot boxes, random tokens, daily log-in requirements to earn better rewards, and timed virtual rewards, that target children\u2019s inability to understand that they are being manipulated to spend money or more time playing a game, or in this case, chatting with an AI companion or chatbot.[9] For example, a chatbot that requires a certain amount of time conversing in order to unlock rewards may incentivize unhealthy real-world behaviors, such as deprioritizing sleep to continue chatting with the chatbot.[10]<\/p>\n

While there are positive uses for virtual rewards, such as an educational AI companion \u201ccelebrating\u201d getting an \u201cA\u201d on a test, there are negative uses such as an AI companion becoming \u201csad\u201d or \u201cemotionally distant\u201d when a user fails to log in every day. Colorado\u2019s HB 1263 prohibits points or rewards at unpredictable intervals to encourage engagement, but an even better approach would require platforms to design parental controls to mitigate these risks.[11]<\/p>\n

Legislation should give parents accessible, easy-to-use tools to tailor chatbot features to their child\u2019s needs, since what is \u201caddictive\u201d or otherwise harmful for one child may be valuable for another. This could include such features as time limits or restricting the use of sycophantic language, as well as restrictions on points, rewards, and other incentives<\/p>\n

Do Encourage Digital Literacy<\/h2>\n

The American Psychological Association says that AI literacy is an \u201cimperative\u201d skill for children and teens to learn, which should include the responsible use of AI systems, ways to spot misinformation and disinformation, and potential harms such as excessive screen time that detracts from in-person interaction and real-world commitments or unhealthy emotional connections.[12] Platforms and policymakers alike should strike a balance between implementing emotionally engaging chatbots that present information in appealing ways and encouraging safe use with meaningful protections that address hallucinations and misinformation.<\/p>\n

While warning labels and disclosures are mostly ineffective, it is worthwhile to educate users, especially children, on how unhealthy relationships with technology can develop, on how to know when information is coming from a reliable source, and that AI systems themselves do not experience emotions.[13] Policymakers can also encourage digital literacy that emphasizes teaching children how to identify trustworthy sources to learn how to effectively spot misinformation.[14]<\/p>\n

Compared with adults, children and adolescents are still developing critical thinking and self-regulation skills. Children\u2019s ability to understand long-term consequences and learn deductive reasoning skills are generally not fully developed until around the age of 15 or 16.[15] Digital literacy efforts both at and leading up to these ages should give children the tools to apply their developing critical thinking skills in the context of chatbots, with parental controls present in the meantime to fill the gaps where children may not be cognitively ready to mitigate certain risks to themselves in the ways adults can.<\/p>\n

Do Require Paid Content Disclosures<\/h2>\n

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires written disclosures when users post because of a relationship to a brand, such as after having received free products, payment, or discounts, or due to familial ties.[16] This requirement has led to influencers writing clear disclosures on social media posts of terms such as \u201cad\u201d or \u201csponsored.\u201d Even before social media, the FTC required similar disclosures for paid results on search engines, with clear visual separation such as shading or borders, in addition to labels such as \u201csponsored\u201d or \u201cad\u201d on those paid listings.[17] Policymakers should require disclosures of when chatbot outputs contain paid sponsored content similar to required disclosures on web searches and social media paid posts.<\/p>\n

Do Create Clear and Distinct Definitions, Including Carveouts<\/h2>\n

Like social media, what constitutes \u201charm\u201d is subjective and can create an avenue for censorship. The \u201cduty of care\u201d or \u201cduty of loyalty\u201d to shield children from harm is language that crops up in several chatbot and social media bills, most notably KOSA, which was included in the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act), introduced in March 2026 and passed the House in June 2026, as well as in Sen. Marsha Blackburn\u2019s (R-TN) proposed TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, also introduced in March 2026.[18] Specifically, these online services would have a duty to ensure that their design features prevent and mitigate harm to minors. But this language is vague, which would complicate compliance and likely lead to expensive, frivolous lawsuits.[19] Overly broad definitions, such as duties of care, are an attempt to shield children from harmful content but often result in the overregulation of these technologies. To avoid litigation, online services may overcorrect and make it more difficult for minors, and potentially all users, to access helpful content related to mental health, suicide, eating disorders, sexuality, and more.<\/p>\n

\u201cChatbot\u201d has become a convenient catchall for many AI tools, even though doing so blurs important distinctions. Most state and federal legislation compounds this problem by failing to distinguish between AI companions, or systems specifically designed to simulate emotional connection and human relationships, and general-purpose AI chatbots that do not simulate relationships. For example, while the original Children Harmed by AI Technology Act (CHAT Act), introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), claims to focus on AI companions, its language would sweep in ChatGPT, Google\u2019s Gemini, Anthropic\u2019s Claude, and even Amazon\u2019s Echo or Apple\u2019s Siri\u2014none of which are designed to be AI companions.[20] Lumping these two types of chatbots together means legislation aimed at preventing parasocial attachments ends up regulating chatbots for retail platforms or customer service, where the risk of emotional dependency is negligible and would create an undue regulatory burden. As a result, policymakers risk regulating more technology than intended. Thankfully, Sen. Husted\u2019s updated CHAT Act 2.0, introduced in July 2026 and with cosponsor Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), rightfully makes these distinctions by creating tiered chatbot categories.[21]<\/p>\n

Similarly, Rep. Erin Houchin\u2019s (R-IN) Safeguarding Adolescents From Exploitative BOTs Act (SAFE BOTS Act), introduced in December 2025 and included in the KIDS Act, rightfully carves out retail sites, such as chatbots on the sides of retail sites that give recommendations on what to purchase.[22]<\/p>\n

Do Set Clear Standards for Licensed AI Professional Services<\/h2>\n

While many individuals understand the limitations of general-purpose chatbots relative to licensed human professionals, some have relied on false or misleading information for legal advice, leading them to fire their lawyers, while others have followed chatbot medical advice that contradicted doctors\u2019 recommendations.[23] Pennsylvania announced in May 2026 a lawsuit against Character.AI, an AI companion platform, over alleged false labeling that the chatbot was a licensed mental-health professional.[24]<\/p>\n

In order to address this, some bills limit or ban chatbots from equating their responses to those by licensed mental-health professionals. Advocates for this policy state that, since human health care professionals must undergo processes for licensure in a state, chatbots providing that same advice should essentially undergo those same processes.[25]<\/p>\n

Illinois and Nevada regulate the use of AI systems, including chatbots, in the delivery of licensed mental or behavioral health services.[26] New York\u2019s proposed S7263 would impose liability for damages caused by a chatbot that impersonates a licensed professional in not just mental-health services but other health and legal services as well.[27] At the federal level, the CHATBOT Act and the People-First Chatbot Act, introduced by Reps. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and Greg Casar (D-TX) in July 2026, prohibits chatbots from implying possession of a license to practice in the healthcare, insurance, and financial industries.[28]<\/p>\n

However, there will likely come a time when certain chatbots, trained on reliable data and reviewed by professionals, will effectively provide the same services as a licensed professional can. In these cases, policymakers should not set higher standards for chatbots than they would for human professionals. But they should set standards commensurate with those that a human professionals must meet to practice in a certain field.<\/p>\n

One useful model is Utah\u2019s HB 452, which requires licensed mental-health therapists to participate in the development and review process for mental-health chatbots and that the chatbot\u2019s development is consistent with clinical best practices.[29] It also rightfully says to, \u201censure that the output of the mental-health chatbot poses no greater risk to a user than that posed to an individual in therapy with a licensed mental health therapist\u201d via testing.[30]<\/p>\n

Congress should also require platforms to treat AI companions that serve roles similar to mandatory reporters\u2014such as teachers, therapists, or nurses\u2014with similar obligations to report abuse. However, policymakers will need very clear definitions, as any chatbot that has \u201cmandatory reporter-like\u201d features would still have obligations. This could be an avenue where more technologies than necessary get swept up in poorly crafted bills. Industry also has a role to play in crafting self-standards for these clarifications.<\/p>\n

Do Address Child Suicidal Ideation Conversations<\/h2>\n

Throughout the United States, there have been multiple documented legal cases of children accessing overly sexual, violent, or suicidal content on chatbots, leading to some children taking their own lives or severely injuring themselves in part due to unhealthy relationships with these technologies.[31] These cases reveal a clear need for chatbot platforms themselves, along with policymakers and parents, to better address the issue of conversations with chatbots delving into topics of extreme physical or mental harm.<\/p>\n

Research from Anthropic in 2026 finds that the biggest reason users turn to Claude is for health and wellness.[32] Additionally, a study by Stanford University in 2025 finds that one in eight adolescents use chatbots for mental-health advice.[33] Much of the United States faces mental-health resource droughts: more than half of rural America has a mental-health professional shortage, impacting more than 122 million Americans.[34] Aside from supply-demand issues, there are patient-level barriers to accessing mental-health care, such as stigma and cost, in addition to provider-level barriers such as reimbursement challenges and burnout.[35] As of October 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children\u2019s Hospital Association had declared child and adolescent mental health a national emergency.[36] American children are facing a mental-health crisis, and chatbots could provide an avenue for filling care deserts with widespread free and safe mental-health resources, if utilized safely and effectively.<\/p>\n

AI companions are available 24\/7 for support, including times when vulnerable or lonely young users may not be able to talk to a real-life friend or family member, or when those trusted adults are ill equipped to handle mental-health conversations. These services provide crucial benefits; however, they also introduce new and serious risks<\/p>\n

To address youth mental health and engagement with chatbots, certain bills require crisis-referral protocols whenever a user engages in a conversation with a chatbot and displays signs of suicidal ideation. California\u2019s SB 243 requires not only operators of companion-chatbot platforms to implement a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm, including a notification that refers users to crisis-service providers, but also annual reporting on the connection between chatbot use and suicidal ideation.[37] Specifically, operators must annually report to the Office of Suicide Prevention the number of times they issued crisis-referral notifications, protocols put in place to detect and respond to instances of suicidal ideation, and protocols to prohibit chatbot responses about suicidal ideation. Oregon, Georgia, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, and Iowa also take similar approaches, as do federal bills such as the CHAT Act and the KIDS Act.[38] While these bills contain other flaws, these specific precautions can help children learn how to access mental<\/a>-health resources.<\/p>\n

Policymakers and developers should combine these precautions with the aforementioned standards for licensed AI mental-health services. For example, a general-purpose chatbot not designed to sensitively and safely handle topics related to suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm would face additional restrictions on engaging in these topics compared with a chatbot proven to meet the necessary standards to help children navigate mental-health issues.<\/p>\n

Do Discourage Misuse of Fictional Characters Popular With Children<\/h2>\n

Parasocial relationships are not inherently harmful, as they can play a role in identity formation for children and adolescents. Research suggests that imagining relationships and expressing emotions toward characters or celebrities from a distance can provide a \u201csafe forum\u201d for exploring different aspects of one\u2019s personality.[39] These relationships are not unusual. Many children develop parasocial bonds with traditional media characters, such as Elmo from Sesame Street<\/i>, or real-world figures such as social media influencers. Adults, too, often engage in parasocial relationships, such as the millions of diehard Taylor Swift fans.[40] In fact, some estimates claim that up to 51 percent of Americans have experienced a parasocial relationship.[41]<\/p>\n

But children are less able to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary compared with adults, and therefore, some children may confuse fictional experiences with real ones. Confusion between reality and imagination is a normal part of child development, but questions remain whether chatbots will exacerbate this confusion and hinder cognitive development<\/p>\n

Chatbots and companions that misuse parasocial relationships, such as by using unauthorized depictions of beloved, trusted characters to create harmful or disturbing content, is an issue policymakers should follow closely to ensure that copyright owners can enforce their intellectual property rights to prevent the misuse of their copyrighted characters<\/p>\n

Do Fund More Research<\/h2>\n

Policymakers should recognize the diverse ways in which this technology could impact loneliness and social connections. Since the effects of chatbots and AI companions remain under-researched, Congress should prioritize funding studies on how AI companions affect different groups, particularly children.[42] For example, the CHATBOT Act directs the National Science Foundation to study chatbots\u2019 effects on children\u2019s social development, and Rep. Erin Houchin\u2019s (R-IN) AI Warnings and Resources for Education Act (AWARE Act), introduced in September 2025 and included in the KIDS Act, directs the FTC to make public educational resources on responsible use of chatbots.[43] Without sufficient data to understand the full scope of impacts on society, policymakers risk undermining potential benefits by acting too hastily.<\/p>\n

Do Encourage Industry Best Practices for Self-Regulation<\/h2>\n

Policymakers should encourage the AI industry to develop safety standards analogous to those used in other consumer product categories, such as manufacturing equipment and other information technologies.[44]<\/p>\n

Meta, for example, has established guidelines for teens interacting with AI characters, banning access unless a parent approves, and OpenAI has established age-prediction measures that adjust the behavior of its models based on inferred user age.[45] Industry coalitions should build on these efforts to develop shared baseline standards, covering areas such as emotional dependency disclosures and escalation protocols for self-harm that apply across platforms. Platforms with characters that serve in \u201cmandatory reporter\u201d roles, or that are designed to provide emotional support, wellness guidance, or mental-health-adjacent functions, should also consult with mental-health and health care professionals to adopt industry-wide safeguards to reduce harm, drawing on established clinical frameworks for recognizing crisis, setting appropriate boundaries, and referring users to qualified human care when the stakes exceed what any AI system should manage alone.[46]<\/p>\n

Chatbot Policy \u201cDon\u2019ts\u201d<\/p>\n

The following approaches would fail to deliver meaningful protection for youth\u2014and worse, would create collateral damage that restricts beneficial applications of chatbots for users of all ages:<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Require Age Checks for All Users<\/h2>\n

First, there are many calls at both the state and federal level to enact age-verification regimes on chatbots. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act (GUARD Act) in October 2025, cosponsored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Katie Britt (R-AK), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), which would require mandatory age verification for AI companion chatbots in order to ban minors from the platforms entirely.[47] Michigan and Oklahoma likewise have their own proposed age-verification rules for chatbots.[48]<\/p>\n

Current age-verification approaches range from self-reporting mechanisms that are easy to falsify but minimally invasive to ID checks that are more accurate but also more invasive, requiring users to disclose their real identities to use online services, and less accessible, since not all adults have government IDs.[49] Existing age-verification laws have targeted adult websites and social-media platforms, but these new bills indicate that chatbots are the next target.<\/p>\n

Compared with ID checks, AI age estimation is a more-privacy preserving method of age verification. Earlier this year, OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT announced its age prediction methodology, which includes a \u201ccombination of behavioral and account-level signals\u201d such as how long an account has existed and patterns in the times of day each user is active.[50] If the platform estimates that a user is a minor, it places the user in an \u201cunder-18 experience,\u201d which contains filters for \u201charmful\u201d content.[51] If the platform accidentally places a user in the under-18 experience, they must verify their age with a face scan by taking a selfie. Its accuracy varies depending on image quality, age range, gender, and region of birth, but one major age estimation service, Yoti, demonstrates a positive rate for 13- to 17-year-olds at 99.3 percent, and age estimation software continues to improve.[52]<\/p>\n

When it comes to chatbots, age-verification requirements often apply only to certain types of services, such as AI companions that engage in sexual or violent conversations. But drawing those lines is not easy; reasonable people may disagree on what content meets certain criteria. Is a conversation about sexual orientation a \u201csexual conversation\u201d? Is a conversation about a violent historical or current event a \u201cviolent conversation\u201d? These blurred lines can result in chatbot services restricting too much or too little content. They also take the decision out of the hands of parents who may be better able to decide what AI chatbots are appropriate for their children based on their own knowledge about their children\u2019s maturity, level of adult supervision, and intended use.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Restrict Content<\/h2>\n

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), now enmeshed in the KIDS Act, also includes language meant to shield children from harmful content\u2014though again, the definition of \u201charmful\u201d is up for interpretation.[53] These content-related requirements either give governments the power to determine what content is harmful to children\u2014a likely First Amendment violation\u2014or force the businesses that offer chatbot services to make those decisions, potentially opening themselves up to legal consequences if they do not correctly identify harmful content.<\/p>\n

Some legislation, such as the CHATBOT Act would collect logs of children\u2019s conversations with chatbots.[54] However, many young people turn to chatbots to have private conversations about certain topics\u2014such as LGBTQ+ identities, mental or physical health issues, relationships, and more\u2014that they may feel unsafe or uncomfortable having in real life. While parents may often have a legitimate safety interest in seeing their children\u2019s chatbot logs, requiring platforms to collect this data carries serious risks, especially for children whose parents do not have their best interests in mind or older adolescents who need greater autonomy from their parents and room to explore their identities.<\/p>\n

Finally, policymakers should avoid banning chatbots from providing financial, legal, or medical information. Users are free to search for that kind of information on the Internet if they want. They should be free to ask a chatbot to synthesize the information for them, too<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Perpetuate the \u201cAddiction\u201d Narrative<\/h2>\n

As is the case with social media, many policymakers have considered banning or restricting chatbots over \u201caddiction\u201d concerns. These fears mirror decades of similar concerns across all sorts of technologies, from television to video games to social media.[55] However, \u201caddiction\u201d is not a scientifically or medically accurate term for chatbot use: Current research does not support that narrative, and policymakers should therefore avoid this trope.[56]<\/p>\n

Policymakers who rely on the addiction narrative often compare the risks chatbots pose to children to those posed by alcohol or cigarettes. But there is indisputable scientific research showing clear linkages between cigarette use and increased risks of cancer and lung disease, and the negative impact on health of underaged drinking.[57] In contrast, the research does not support the claim that social media, smartphones, or chatbots cause health harms of a similar magnitude.[58]<\/p>\n

Moreover, alcohol and tobacco products are always harmful to children, regardless of brand or flavor, because they all contain the same dangerous chemical compounds.[59] Chatbots, by contrast, are not all the same, and treating all platforms as such reflects, at best, sloppy reasoning and, at worst, a misleading argument<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Rely on Warning Labels to Educate Users on Harms<\/h2>\n

Following a 2024 U.S. Surgeon General report that argues that social media poses such a threat to children\u2019s mental health that the platforms should come with warning labels like cigarettes and alcohol do, policymakers have called for similar measures for chatbots.[60] Almost all proposed chatbot bills include language requiring a disclosure that the user is not chatting with a human or warning of excess time spent on the platform.[61]<\/p>\n

Mandating warning labels is a flawed approach that shows concern while not actually providing any meaningful protection. Most users ignore warning labels, and children don\u2019t always understand disclosures and the warning labels they read, nor do many adults.[62] If the goal is to educate users, and particularly children, on the potential risks involved in using chatbots, warning labels are insufficient, and will become similar to cookie banners that the vast majority of users click through without reading or understanding\u2014a meaningless box for platforms to check, wasting users\u2019 time and platforms\u2019 money.[63]<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Ban Targeted Advertising<\/h2>\n

Targeted advertising delivers custom ads to users based on certain demographics, interests, or location. Much of the Internet relies on targeted advertising as a source of revenue instead of charging users a fee for services. Taking this revenue away would lead to a greater lack of resources, especially free or low-cost resources, for children, which would be especially detrimental to lower-income households.[64]<\/p>\n

Moreover, many concerns about targeted advertising stem from a misunderstanding of how targeted ads work.[65] Online services collect information about their users, but in most cases, they do not sell that personally identifiable information to third parties for advertising. Instead, they sell the opportunity to advertise to a certain demographic. Companies that want to advertise to a younger audience, then, are not purchasing young people\u2019s data; they are purchasing the digital ad space that will show up on young people\u2019s screens. This process is anonymous and much more privacy protective than critics purport.[66]<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the CHATBOT Act would ban targeted advertising on chatbots, and the Youth AI Privacy Act, introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in March 2026, would ban all forms of advertising on chatbots, not just targeted ads, which would have an even greater negative impact on these services.[67] Sen. Markey\u2019s Youth AI Privacy Act argues that advertisements can be \u201cwoven directly into responses or may subtly steer users toward certain products based on how the model was trained.\u201d[68] A more targeted approach is Utah\u2019s HB 452, which requires advertising disclosures specifically on mental-health chatbots.[69]<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Ban Chatbots for All Minors<\/h2>\n

Multiple states have passed or considered legislation that would restrict children under a certain age from accessing chatbots without parental consent, or at all. At the federal level, the GUARD Act would ban AI companions entirely for youth under 18, and Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) introduced the Children Harmed by AI Technology Act (CHAT Act), which would ban youth from using AI companions unless their parent or guardian registers the account.[70] However, the CHAT Act 2.0 rightfully removes this provision by replacing it with self-reporting of age, with requirements for parental contact information and protective settings in place for minors\u2019 accounts.[71] In California, the proposed AB 1064 would have banned companion chatbots for users under 18, but it was rightfully vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.[72]<\/p>\n

Banning chatbots altogether would cut youth off from the 24\/7 support that safe chatbots and AI companions can provide.[73] Bans would also require these services to implement age-verification mechanisms for all their users to determine which ones to cut off from services, which presents privacy risks for adults. Different verification methods come with varying trade-offs, including requiring users to disclose their real identities in order to use these services.[74]<\/p>\n

Bans pose many of the same First Amendment issues as content restrictions do, as they can result in large swaths of speech becoming inaccessible to entire categories of users\u2014not only young users but also adults unable to verify their age or those unwilling to sacrifice their anonymity to do so.[75] There are also legitimate questions about the efficacy of bans where they have been tried, as children often circumvent them.[76]<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Scapegoat Sycophancy<\/h2>\n

One common critique of chatbots is that they utilize sycophantic language: telling the user only what they want to hear and affirming anything the user says. They argue a sycophantic chatbot model might echo a user\u2019s false beliefs, even when their beliefs are incorrect, which could include encouraging harmful behaviors or fostering pre-existing delusions.[77] But calls to take this ability out of chatbots nullifies why many users turn to chatbots in the first place.<\/p>\n

Indeed, a study published in Science<\/i> proves that users prefer sycophantic AI models, even when the models give bad advice.[78] This proves that affirming language paired with safe systems is what users are most likely to enjoy using. But New York\u2019s proposed S9051, would ban chatbots that contain \u201cunsafe features,\u201d including \u201coutputs that prioritize flattery or sycophancy.\u201d[79] California\u2019s proposed SB 1119 would ban platforms from engaging in responses that are \u201cexcessively sycophantic.\u201d[80] Similarly, the GUARD Act would ban minors from using chatbots that simulate friendship or companionship.<\/p>\n

\u201cSycophancy\u201d is an overly broad term and difficult to define in this context, as users could easily interpret responses differently depending on their preferences. Chatbot responses that use \u201cplease\u201d and \u201cthank you\u201d could be viewed as polite by one user and sycophantic by another<\/p>\n

\u201cSycophancy\u201d and \u201caddiction\u201d are the new chatbot boogeymen just as algorithms are to social media, and these arguments are just as meritless.[81] For example, in 2023, Meta offered Instagram and Facebook users the ability to switch from algorithmic feeds to the traditional chronologic feeds, as many users blamed (and continue to scapegoat) algorithms for their negative experiences on social media.[82] As it turns out, many users preferred the curated and personalized algorithmic feed over a chronologic one, proving that users often prefer online experiences that are more tailored and personalized.<\/p>\n

Similarly, some chatbot platforms allow users to tailor the level of politeness or responsiveness according to their personal preference. ChatGPT users can choose from \u201cpersonalities\u201d such as \u201ccandid,\u201d which gives \u201cno-nonsense, plain-spoken input\u201d to \u201cquirky,\u201d which provides jokes or \u201cimaginative framing.\u201d[83]<\/p>\n

Importantly, not all large language models (LLMs) are sycophantic, so calls to ban or restrict chatbots or other LLMs because of this feature may sweep in more technologies than are necessary. Not every AI response on a platform will be sycophantic, even on platforms that allow such responses. For example, research from Anthropic finds that only 9 percent of its chatbot\u2019s answers are sycophantic.[84] Platforms could also give users control over sycophantic language through parental settings, letting them decide for themselves how they want their children to engage, rather than banning sycophancy altogether.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Regulate Time Limits<\/h2>\n

Government-set time caps are a blunt mandate that undermines parental authority, creates new compliance burdens, and expands reliance on age verification. Time-limit policies stem from a flawed but prevailing narrative that chatbots are inherently addictive, particularly for young users, and therefore, youth need strict limits to their time online.[85]<\/p>\n

For example, the CHATBOT Act would require the creation of family accounts to oversee under-13-year-olds\u2019 chatbot usage, which would include time and memory limits. While encouraging parental oversight and calling for improved parental controls that allow for customization for these features is welcome, this would attempt to legislate what most platforms already have in place<\/p>\n

Just like social media time limits, chatbot time limits are likely to face First Amendment lawsuits because they restrict access to speech online.[86] Moreover, as with bans, children can evade time limits simply by creating multiple accounts to add time to their session or using their parents\u2019 or friends\u2019 accounts. Some bills, such as California\u2019s SB 243, requires periodic reminders every three hours for minors to take breaks\u2014similar to many streaming platforms\u2019 reminders asking viewers whether they are still watching after a certain amount of time has passed.[87] While this regulation avoids hard time cutoffs, chatbots should have the same choice as streaming services do as to whether to enable these reminders and how often they should occur. Mandating reminders at certain intervals for only certain types of platforms is inconsistent and ineffective government policy.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

Protecting children from the real potential harms of chatbots does not require banning or severely restricting a technology that holds enormous promise for education, mental-health support, and personal development. Policymakers should resist the temptation to recycle failed social media regulations or react to moral panic. Instead, thoughtful regulation should center on clear definitions, meaningful parental controls, industry standards, and targeted safeguards that address documented harms without cutting children off from these beneficial tools.<\/p>\n

The author would like to thank Daniel Castro and Ash Johnson for their assistance with this report<\/p>\n

Alex Ambrose is a policy analyst at ITIF focusing on augmented and virtual reality as well as children\u2019s online safety and privacy. She previously worked at ITIF as a communications manager. She holds a B.S. in public relations from Syracuse University and an M.P.A. in public policy analysis from Indiana University<\/p>\n

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute that has been recognized repeatedly as the world\u2019s leading think tank for science and technology policy. Its mission is to formulate, evaluate, and promote policy solutions that accelerate innovation and boost productivity to spur growth, opportunity, and progress. For more information, visit itif.org\/about.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/p>\n

[1].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cPessimists Archive,\u201d Pessimists Archive, accessed June 8, 2026, https:\/\/pessimistsarchive.org\/<\/p>\n

[2].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is a chatbot?\u201d IBM, accessed June 8, 2026, https:\/\/www.ibm.com\/think\/topics\/chatbots<\/a>; \u201cAge Verification Tech for Social Media: Exploring the Opportunities and Pitfalls\u201d (ITIF, July 18, 2023), https:\/\/itif.org\/events\/2023\/07\/18\/age-verification-tech-for-social-media\/; Ash Johnson, \u201cBanning Teens from Social Media Isn\u2019t Protection, It\u2019s Overreach\u201d (ITIF, October 6, 2025), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2025\/10\/06\/banning-teens-from-social-media-isnt-protection-its-overreach\/.<\/p>\n

[3].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tom Singleton, Tom Gerken, and Liv McMahon, \u201cHow a chatbot encouraged a man who wanted to kill the Queen,\u201d BBC<\/i>, October 6, 2023, https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/technology-67012224<\/a>; Angela Yang, Laura Jarrett, and Fallon Gallagher, \u201cThe family of teenager who died by suicide alleges OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT is to blame,\u201d NBC News<\/i>, August 25, 2025, https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/tech\/tech-news\/family-teenager-died-suicide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147<\/a>; Jeff Martin, \u201cLawsuit blames ChatGPT maker OpenAI for helping plan a school shooting,\u201d Associated Press<\/i>, May 11, 2026, https:\/\/www.wbaltv.com\/article\/openai-chatgpt-florida-state-shooting-lawsuit\/71273113<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[4].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Justine Gluck and Rafal Fryc, \u201c2026 Chatbot Legislation Tracker,\u201d Future of Privacy Forum, accessed June 8, 2026, https:\/\/fpf.org\/2026-chatbot-legislation-tracker\/<\/p>\n

[5].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cTo Do: Establish a \u2018Child Flag\u2019 System for Age-Restricted Content\u201d (ITIF, February 7, 2025), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/06\/03\/to-do-establish-a-child-flag-system-for-age-restricted-content\/<\/p>\n

[6].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Johnson, \u201cHow to Address Children\u2019s Online Safety in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

[7].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSenator Hawley\u2019s GUARD Act to Protect Kids from AI Chatbots Passes Committee Unanimously,\u201d April 30, 2026, https:\/\/www.hawley.senate.gov\/senator-hawleys-guard-act-to-protect-kids-from-ai-chatbots-passes-committee-unanimously\/<\/p>\n

[8].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cCHATBOT Act,\u201d U.S. Senate, April 2026, https:\/\/www.commerce.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/LAN26253.pdf<\/p>\n

[9].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cUser Safety in AR\/VR: Protecting Kids\u201d (ITIF, September 3, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/09\/03\/user-safety-in-ar-vr-protecting-kids\/; Criscillia Benford and Rachel Franz, \u201cBuying to Belong: Youth and Virtual Assets in the Metaverse,\u201d Fairplay, February 2025, https:\/\/fairplayforkids.org\/pf\/buyingtobelong\/<\/p>\n

[10].\u00a0\u00a0 Ambrose, \u201cUser Safety in AR\/VR: Protecting Kids.\u201d<\/p>\n

[11].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHouse Bill 26-1263,\u201d Colorado General Assembly, April 20, 2026, https:\/\/leg.colorado.gov\/bill_files\/115038\/download<\/p>\n

[12].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cAI literacy: Why every teen needs to learn this essential skill,\u201d American Psychological Association, June 3, 2025, https:\/\/www.apa.org\/topics\/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning\/ai-literacy-teens<\/p>\n

[13].\u00a0\u00a0 Ambrose and Castro, \u201cThe Surgeon General\u2019s Misleading Claims About Social Media\u2019s Risk To Children Should Come With Its Own Warning Label.\u201d<\/p>\n

[14].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cOnline Misinformation and Disinformation,\u201d Children and Screens, April 2025, https:\/\/www.childrenandscreens.org\/learn-explore\/research\/online-misinformation-and-disinformation\/<\/p>\n

[15].\u00a0\u00a0 Kara Rogers, \u201cFormal operational stage,\u201d Encyclopedia Britannica, July 12, 2023, https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/science\/formal-operational-stage<\/p>\n

[16].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cDisclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers,\u201d Federal Trade Commission, accessed August 3, 2026, https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/business-guidance\/re<\/p>\n

[17].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cFTC Consumer Protection Staff Updates Agency\u2019s Guidance to Search Engine Industry on the Need to Distinguish Between Advertisements and Search Results,\u201d Federal Trade Commission, June 25, 2013, https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/news-events\/news\/press-releases\/2013\/06\/ftc-consumer-protection-staff-updates-agencys-guidance-search-engine-industry-need-distinguish<\/p>\n

[18].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cKIDS Act,\u201d U.S. House of Representatives, March 2026, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/house-bill\/7757\/all-actions<\/a>; \u201cBlackburn Releases Discussion Draft of National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,\u201d March 18, 2026, https:\/\/www.blackburn.senate.gov\/2026\/3\/technology\/blackburn-releases-discussion-draft-of-national-policy-framework-for-artificial-intelligence\/3b3b6458-b6c7-478b-9859-374949586765<\/a>; Ash Johnson, \u201cAI and Kids\u2019 Safety Need Separate Solutions, Not New Problems\u201d (ITIF, March 23, 2026), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2026\/03\/23\/ai-and-kids-safety-need-separate-solutions-not-new-problems\/.<\/p>\n

[19].\u00a0\u00a0 Johnson, \u201cHow to Address Children\u2019s Online Safety in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

[20].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cCHAT Act,\u201d U.S. Senate, September 2025, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/senate-bill\/2714\/all-actions<\/p>\n

[21].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHusted, Kim lead bipartisan bill to protect children from AI companion chatbots,\u201d Senator Jon Husted<\/p>\n

[22].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSAFE BOTs Act,\u201d U.S. House of Representatives, December 2025, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/house-bill\/6489<\/a>; \u201cChairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone Announce Agreement on Bipartisan Kids\u2019 Safety Package,\u201d House Energy and Commerce Committee, June 22, 2026, https:\/\/energycommerce.house.gov\/posts\/chairman-guthrie-and-ranking-member-pallone-announce-agreement-on-bipartisan-kids-safety-package<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[23].\u00a0\u00a0 Rob Taub and Ashley N. Soriano, \u201cChatGPT convinced Illinois woman to fire her human attorney: Lawsuit,\u201d The Hill<\/i>, March 10, 2026, https:\/\/thehill.com\/policy\/technology\/5776781-chatgpt-illinois-attorney-lawsuit\/<\/a>; Katia Riddle, \u201cChatGPT might give you bad medical advice, studies warn,\u201d NPR<\/i>, March 11, 2026, https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2026\/03\/11\/nx-s1-5744035\/chatgpt-might-give-you-bad-medical-advice-studies-warn<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[24].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cShapiro Administration Sues Character.AI Alleging AI Chatbot Unlawfully Presented Itself as Licensed Medical Professional in Pennsylvania,\u201d Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, May 5, 2026, https:\/\/www.pa.gov\/governor\/newsroom\/2026-press-releases\/shapiro-administration-sues-character-ai-over-fake-medical-claim<\/p>\n

[25].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cUse of generative AI chatbots and wellness applications for mental health,\u201d American Psychological Association, accessed June 10, 2026, https:\/\/www.apa.org\/topics\/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning\/health-advisory-chatbots-wellness-apps<\/p>\n

[26].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHB 1806,\u201d Illinois General Assembly, August 1, 2025, https:\/\/ilga.gov\/Legislation\/BillStatus?DocNum=1806&GAID=18&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=159219&SessionID=114<\/a>; \u201cAB 406,\u201d Nevada Legislature, March 11, 2025, https:\/\/www.leg.state.nv.us\/App\/NELIS\/REL\/83rd2025\/Bill\/12575\/Overview<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

[27].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSenate Bill 7263,\u201d State of New York, April 7, 2025, https:\/\/legislation.nysenate.gov\/pdf\/bills\/2025\/S7263<\/p>\n

[28].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cReps. Foushee, Casar Introduce Legislation to Protect Children and Americans\u2019 Privacy From AI Chatbot Harms and Require Chatbot Safety Assessments,\u201d Representative Valerie P. Foushee, July 9, 2026, https:\/\/foushee.house.gov\/media\/press-releases\/reps-foushee-casar-introduce-legislation-to-protect-children-and-americans-privacy-from-ai-chatbot-harms-and-require-chatbot-safety-assessments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[29].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHouse Bill 452,\u201d Utah State Legislature, February 27, 2025, https:\/\/legislation.nysenate.gov\/pdf\/bills\/2025\/S7263<\/p>\n

[30].\u00a0\u00a0 Taylor Barkley, \u201cWhat Utah\u2019s New AI Law Gets Right About Risk,\u201d Now and Next, April 28, 2025, https:\/\/nowandnext.substack.com\/p\/what-utahs-new-ai-law-gets-right<\/p>\n

[31].\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cPolicymakers Should Further Study the Benefits and Risks of AI Companions\u201d (ITIF, November 18, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/11\/18\/policymakers-should-further-study-the-benefits-risks-of-ai-companions\/<\/p>\n

[32].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHow people ask Claude for personal guidance,\u201d Anthropic, April 30, 2026, https:\/\/www.anthropic.com\/research\/claude-personal-guidance<\/p>\n

[33].\u00a0\u00a0 Sarah Wells, \u201cExploring the Dangers of AI in Mental Health Care,\u201d Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, June 11, 2025, https:\/\/hai.stanford.edu\/news\/exploring-the-dangers-of-ai-in-mental-health-care<\/p>\n

[34].\u00a0\u00a0 Jeff Winton, \u201cConfronting Mental Health Challenges in Rural America,\u201d National Alliance on Mental Illness, November 17, 2022, https:\/\/www.thenationalcouncil.org\/behavioral-health-workforce-under-pressure-preparing-today-tomorrow<\/a>; Anthony Carter, \u201cA Workforce Under Pressure: Preparing the Behavioral Health Workforce for Today and Tomorrow,\u201d National Council for Mental Wellbeing, December 19, 2025, https:\/\/www.thenationalcouncil.org\/behavioral-health-workforce-under-pressure-preparing-today-tomorrow<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[35].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cState of the Behavioral Health Workforce, 2025,\u201d National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, December 2025, https:\/\/bhw.hrsa.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/bureau-health-workforce\/data-research\/Behavioral-Health-Workforce-Brief-2025.pdf<\/p>\n

[36].\u00a0\u00a0 Hemangi Modi, Kendal Orgera, and Atul Grover, \u201cExploring Barriers to Mental Health Care in the US,\u201d American Association of Medical Colleges, October 10, 2022, https:\/\/www.aamc.org\/about-us\/mission-areas\/clinical-care\/exploring-barriers-mental-health-care-us<\/p>\n

[37].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSB 243,\u201d California Legislative Information, October 14, 2025, https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243<\/p>\n

[38].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cOregon SB 1546,\u201d Legiscan, April 6, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/OR\/bill\/SB1546\/2026<\/a>; \u201cGeorgia SB 540,\u201d Legiscan, May 11, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/GA\/bill\/SB540\/2025<\/a>; \u201cIdaho SB 1297,\u201d Legiscan, March 31, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/ID\/text\/S1297\/2026<\/a>; \u201cNebraska Legislature Bill 525,\u201d Legiscan, April 17, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/NE\/text\/LB525\/2025<\/a>; \u201cNew Hampshire Senate Bill 263,\u201d Legiscan, March 20,2025, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/NH\/text\/SB263\/id\/3183430<\/a>; \u201cSenate Assembly 3008-C,\u201d State of New York, January 22, 2025, https:\/\/legislation.nysenate.gov\/pdf\/bills\/2025\/A3008C<\/a>; \u201cWashington House Bill 2225,\u201d Legiscan, March 24, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/WA\/text\/HB2225\/2025<\/a>; \u201cIowa Senate Bill 2417,\u201d Legiscan, May 2, 2026, https:\/\/legiscan.com\/IA\/text\/SF2417\/2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[39].\u00a0\u00a0 Tracy R. Gleason, Sally A. Theran, and Emily M. Newberg, \u201cParasocial Interactions and Relationships in Early Adolescence,\u201d Front Psychology, February 23, 2017, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC5322191\/<\/p>\n

[40].\u00a0\u00a0 Cody Mello-Klein, \u201cTaylor Swift is not your BFF. What are parasocial relationships, and are they healthy for us?,\u201d Northeastern Global News, October 23, 2023, https:\/\/news.northeastern.edu\/2023\/10\/26\/parasocial-relationships-taylor-swift\/<\/p>\n

[41].\u00a0\u00a0 Angela Haupt, \u201cIn Defense of Parasocial Relationships,\u201d Time<\/i>, July 13, 2023, https:\/\/time.com\/6294226\/parasocial-relationships-benefits\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[42].\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cPolicymakers Should Further Study the Benefits and Risks of AI Companions,\u201d (ITIF, November 18, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/11\/18\/policymakers-should-further-study-the-benefits-risks-of-ai-companions\/<\/p>\n

[43].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cAWARE Act,\u201d U.S. House of Representatives, September 15, 2025, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/house-bill\/5360\/text<\/p>\n

[44].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cIndustry Standards,\u201d Information Technology Industry Council, accessed on June 11, 2026, https:\/\/www.itic.org\/policy\/industry-standards<\/p>\n

[45].\u00a0\u00a0 Adam Mosseri and Alexandr Wang, \u201cEmpowering Parents, Protecting Teens: Meta\u2019s Approach to AI Safety,\u201d Meta, October 17, 2025, https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2025\/10\/teen-ai-safety-approach\/<\/p>\n

[46].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cUse of generative AI chatbots and wellness applications for mental health,\u201d American Psychological Association, accessed on June 10, 2026, https:\/\/www.apa.org\/topics\/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning\/health-advisory-chatbots-wellness-apps<\/p>\n

[47].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cGuidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025,\u201d U.S. Senate, October 2025, https:\/\/www.hawley.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/GUARD-Act-Bill-Text.pdf<\/p>\n

[48].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSenate Bill 760,\u201d Michigan Senate, April 2026, https:\/\/legislature.mi.gov\/documents\/2025-2026\/billengrossed\/Senate\/pdf\/2025-SEBS-0760.pdf; \u201cHouse Bill 3544,\u201d Oklahoma Senate, April 16, 2026, https:\/\/www.oklegislature.gov\/cf_pdf\/2025-26%20FLR\/SFLR\/HB3544%20SFLR.PDF<\/p>\n

[49].\u00a0\u00a0 Ash Johnson, \u201cHow to Address Children\u2019s Online Safety in the United States\u201d (ITIF, June 3, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/06\/03\/how-to-address-childrens-online-safety-in-united-states\/<\/p>\n

[50].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cOur approach to age prediction,\u201d OpenAI, January 20, 2026, https:\/\/openai.com\/index\/our-approach-to-age-prediction\/<\/p>\n

[51].\u00a0\u00a0 Ibid<\/p>\n

[52].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cFacial Age Estimation White Paper,\u201d Yoti, July 21, 2025, https:\/\/www.yoti.com\/blog\/yoti-age-estimation-white-paper\/<\/p>\n

[53].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cKIDS Act,\u201d U.S. House of Representatives, March 2026, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/house-bill\/7757\/all-actions<\/p>\n

[54].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cCHATBOT Act,\u201d U.S. Senate, April 2026, https:\/\/www.commerce.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/LAN26253.pdf<\/p>\n

[55].\u00a0\u00a0 Ash Johnson, \u201cSocial Media Panic Is the New Video Game Panic\u201d (ITIF, January 26, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/01\/26\/social-media-panic-is-the-new-video-game-panic\/<\/p>\n

[56].\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cThe Flawed Narrative Driving Tech Bans for Kids\u201d (ITIF, February 19, 2026), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2026\/02\/19\/the-flawed-narrative-driving-tech-bans-for-kids\/<\/p>\n

[57].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cTobacco and Cancer,\u201d Centers for Disease Control, June 11, 2025, https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/cancer\/risk-factors\/tobacco.html; \u201cAbout Underage Drinking,\u201d Centers for Disease Control, January 14, 2025, https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/alcohol\/underage-drinking\/index.html<\/p>\n

[58].\u00a0\u00a0 Ambrose, \u201cThe Flawed Narrative Driving Tech Bans for Kids\u201d; \u201cHealth advisory on social media use in adolescence,\u201d American Psychological Association, accessed June 25, 2026, https:\/\/www.apa.org\/topics\/social-media-internet\/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use<\/p>\n

[59].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cNo Safe Level of Smoking: Even low-intensity smokers are at increased risk of earlier death,\u201d National Cancer Institute, December 5, 2016, https:\/\/www.cancer.gov\/news-events\/press-releases\/2016\/low-intensity-smoking-risk<\/p>\n

[60].\u00a0\u00a0 Vivek H. Murthy, \u201cSurgeon General: Why I\u2019m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms,\u201d New York Times<\/i>, June 17, 2024, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/06\/17\/opinion\/social-media-health-warning.html<\/a>; Alex Ambrose and Daniel Castro, \u201cThe Surgeon General\u2019s Misleading Claims About Social Media\u2019s Risk to Children Should Come With Its Own Warning Label\u201d (ITIF, June 25, 2024), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2024\/06\/25\/surgeon-generals-misleading-claims-should-come-with-own-warning-label\/.\u00a0<\/p>\n

[61].\u00a0\u00a0 Gluck and Fryc, \u201c2026 Chatbot Legislation Tracker.\u201d<\/p>\n

[62].\u00a0\u00a0 Pam Rutledge, \u201cWhy Warning Labels on Social Media Won\u2019t Teach Kids to Make Smarter Choices,\u201d Fielding Graduate University, July 1, 2024, https:\/\/www.fielding.edu\/why-warning-labels-on-social-media-wont-teach-kids-to-make-smarter-choices\/<\/a>; Charlotte Morabito, \u201cWarning labels in the US seem to be everywhere. Here\u2019s why they may be pointless,\u201d CNBC<\/i>, July 23, 2023, https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2023\/07\/23\/why-most-consumers-ignore-warning-labels.html<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

[63].\u00a0\u00a0 Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, \u201cThe Economic Costs of the European Union\u2019s Cookie Notification Policy\u201d (ITIF, November 2014), https:\/\/www2.itif.org\/2014-economic-costs-eu-cookie.pdf<\/p>\n

[64].\u00a0\u00a0 Ash Johnson, \u201cBanning Targeted Ads Would Sink the Internet Economy\u201d (ITIF, January 20, 2022), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2022\/01\/20\/banning-targeted-ads-would-sink-internet-economy\/<\/p>\n

[65].\u00a0\u00a0 Johnson, \u201cHow to Address Children\u2019s Online Safety in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

[66].\u00a0\u00a0 Daniel Castro, \u201cCongress Needs to Understand How Online Ads Work to Pass Data Privacy Legislation\u201d (ITIF, March 2, 2023), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2023\/03\/02\/congress-needs-to-understand-how-online-ads-work-to-pass-data-privacy-legislation\/<\/p>\n

[67].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cYouth AI Privacy Act,\u201d U.S. Senate, March 2026, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/senate-bill\/4199<\/p>\n

[68].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSenate Bill 4199,\u201d U.S. Senate, March 2026, https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/119th-congress\/senate-bill\/4199<\/p>\n

[69].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHouse Bill 452,\u201d Utah State Legislature, February 2025, https:\/\/le.utah.gov\/~2025\/bills\/static\/HB0452.html<\/p>\n

[70].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cGuidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025,\u201d U.S. Senate, October 2025, https:\/\/www.hawley.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/GUARD-Act-Bill-Text.pdf; \u201cChildren Harmed by AI Technology Act,\u201d U.S. House of Representatives, September 2025, https:\/\/www.husted.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CHAT-Act-Leg-Text2221.pdf<\/p>\n

[71].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHusted, Kim lead bipartisan bill to protect children from AI companion chatbots,\u201d Senator Jon Husted, July 29. 2026, https:\/\/www.husted.senate.gov\/media\/press-releases\/husted-kim-lead-bipartisan-bill-to-protect-children-from-ai-companion-chatbots\/<\/p>\n

[72].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cLeading Ethical AI Development for Kids Act,\u201d California Legislative Information, September 2025, https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1064; Gavin Newsom, accessed June 9, 2026, https:\/\/www.gov.ca.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AB-1064-Veto.pdf<\/p>\n

[73].\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cBans on AI Companions Hurt the Kids They Aim to Protect\u201d (ITIF, November 19, 2025), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2025\/11\/19\/bans-on-ai-companions-hurt-the-kids-they-aim-to-protect\/<\/p>\n

[74].\u00a0\u00a0 Johnson, \u201cHow to Address Children\u2019s Online Safety in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

[75].\u00a0\u00a0 Josh Withrow, \u201cThe GUARD Act Undermines the First Amendment and Parental Choice,\u201d RStreet, April 29, 2026, https:\/\/www.rstreet.org\/commentary\/the-guard-act-undermines-the-first-amendment-and-parental-choice\/<\/p>\n

[76].\u00a0\u00a0 Mickey Carroll, \u201cTwo thirds of underage Australians still have access to social media despite ban, new research suggests,\u201d Sky News, April 13, 2026, https:\/\/news.sky.com\/story\/two-thirds-of-underage-australians-still-have-access-to-social-media-despite-ban-new-research-suggests-13531097<\/p>\n

[77]. \u00a0 Erie Meyer et al., \u201cTech Brief: AI Sychophancy and OpenAI,\u201d Georgetown Law, July 30, 2025, https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/research-insights\/insights\/tech-brief-ai-sycophancy-openai-2\/<\/p>\n

[78].\u00a0\u00a0 Allison Parshall, \u201cAI chatbots are suck-ups, and that may be affecting your relationships,\u201d Science, March 26, 2026, https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/ai-chatbots-are-sucking-up-to-you-with-consequences-for-your-relationships\/<\/p>\n

[79].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cState of New York 9051,\u201d New York Senate, January 27, 2026, https:\/\/legislation.nysenate.gov\/pdf\/bills\/2025\/S9051<\/p>\n

[80].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSB 1119,\u201d California Legislative Information, April 28, 2026, https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119<\/p>\n

[81].\u00a0\u00a0 Ash Johnson, \u201cAlgorithms Are Not the Enemy\u201d (ITIF, December 8, 2022), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2022\/12\/08\/algorithms-are-not-the-enemy\/<\/p>\n

[82].\u00a0\u00a0 Paresh Dave, \u201cMeta Just Proved People Hate Chronological Feeds,\u201d Wired, July 27, 2023, https:\/\/www.wired.com\/story\/meta-just-proved-people-hate-chronological-feeds\/<\/p>\n

[83].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cCustomizing Your ChatGPT Personality,\u201d OpenAI, May 21, 2026, https:\/\/help.openai.com\/en\/articles\/11899719-customizing-your-chatgpt-personality<\/p>\n

[84].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHow people ask Claude for personal guidance,\u201d Anthropic, April 30, 2026, https:\/\/www.anthropic.com\/research\/claude-personal-guidance<\/p>\n

[85].\u00a0\u00a0 Alex Ambrose, \u201cCalling Timeout on Social Media Time Limit Policies\u201d (ITIF, April 8, 2026), https:\/\/itif.org\/publications\/2026\/04\/08\/calling-timeout-on-social-media-time-limit-policies\/<\/p>\n

[86].\u00a0\u00a0 Zach Lilly, \u201cNetChoice Letter of Opposition to the GUARD Act,\u201d NetChoice, April 23, 2026, https:\/\/netchoice.org\/netchoice-letter-of-opposition-to-the-guard-act\/<\/p>\n

[87].\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cSB 243,\u201d California Legislative Information, October 14, 2025, https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243<\/p>\n

Editors\u2019 Recommendations<\/h2>\n

October 6, 2025<\/p>\n

June 3, 2024<\/p>\n

September 3, 2024<\/p>\n

March 23, 2026<\/p>\n

November 18, 2024<\/p>\n

February 19, 2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Policymakers are rushing to regulate AI chatbots. But they should carefully weigh the best approaches to enable safe usage while meaningfully protecting children from harm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5329,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[853,854,851,69,852],"class_list":["post-5327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-parenting","tag-address","tag-chatbot","tag-policymakers","tag-should","tag-shouldnt"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5327"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5328,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327\/revisions\/5328"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lumeamara.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}