mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability

arXiv 2604.18893 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2026cs.CY cs.AI cs.ETcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 insights from regulatory theory, psychology, and information systems research, this paper critically examines these recent interventions. We examine what is regulated and who is regulated, identifying regulatory targets, scope, and modalities. We classify interventions by method and priority, showing how emerging regimes combine "locks and blocks", such as access gating and content moderation, with measures addressing toxic relationship features and process-based accountability requirements. We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions. More, however, is required. Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerability, or highly specified accountability processes, while failing to confront deeper power asymmetries between providers and users. Providers of companion chatbots increasingly control artificial intimacy at scale, creating unprecedented opportunities for control through intimacy. We suggest that a general, open-ended duty of care would be an important first step toward constraining that power and addressing a fundamental source of chatbot risk. The paper contributes to debates on companion chatbot regulation and is relevant to regulators, platform providers, and scholars concerned with digital intimacy, law and technology, and fairness, accountability, and transparency in sociotechnical systems.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

Builds on

6 of 80 references.

References · 6

  1. 2024AI Companions Reduce Lonelinesscited by 28
  2. 2025Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narrativescited by 12
  3. 2023Moderating Model Marketplaces: Platform Governance Puzzles for AI Intermediariescited by 9
  4. 2025Mapping the Parasocial AI Market: User Trends, Engagement and Riskscited by 5
  5. 2023Acceptable risks in Europe's proposed AI Act: Reasonableness and other principles for deciding how much risk management is enoughcited by 2
  6. 2025Understanding Human-Chatbot Romance: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study on Romantic Fantasy and Other Interpersonal Characteristicscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.