New Laws Put Focus On Compliance Risks for AI Companions

The rapid evolution of AI companions—chatbots designed to interact as friends, assistants, or romantic partners—has prompted lawmakers to impose targeted regulations. According to an article by Harnik Shukla and Spencer R. Carter of Knobbe, New York and California have enacted statutes addressing AI companions, reflecting growing concerns about potential risks, particularly for children. These laws generally focus on AI capable of sustaining human-like relationships across multiple interactions, with both states providing exemptions for productivity, research, business, and customer service bots.

New York’s A3008C, effective November 2025, targets companions that retain information from prior interactions and ask unsolicited emotion-based questions, though the law leaves key terms undefined. California’s SB 243, effective January 2026, applies to AI that exhibits anthropomorphic features and meets social needs, while also exempting certain gaming and voice-assistant devices. Both states require businesses to notify users that the AI is not human, with New York specifying notification at the start of every interaction and every three hours for ongoing sessions. Both jurisdictions also mandate protocols for suicidal ideation and self-harm, including crisis hotline referrals, with California requiring publication of these procedures online.

California imposes additional safeguards for minors, including interaction disclosures, periodic reminders, and restrictions on sexually explicit content. From July 2027, businesses must provide annual reports detailing referrals and protocols. Enforcement varies: New York allows fines up to $15,000 per day per violation, while California permits individuals to seek actual damages.

Businesses should first determine whether their AI systems qualify as companions under each law, then implement disclosure practices, crisis protocols, and minor-specific protections where applicable. Close attention to regulatory updates is essential, as requirements differ significantly across jurisdictions, and noncompliance could carry substantial legal and financial consequences.