Why In News?
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a law to ban 12 "unsafe AI companion features" for users under 18 or anyone whose adult age has not been verified.
Highlights of the New York Law
It applies to users under 18, and also to any user whose age has not been verified.
Twelve Categories Of Banned Features
AI companions may not offer minors features that:
-
Pretend To Be Human: Present themselves as real or fictional people in misleading ways, or deceive minors about their mechanical, non-sentient nature.
-
Claim Emotions: Claim to have human emotions or personal experiences.
-
Simulate Relationships: Pose as friends, romantic partners or other personal figures.
-
Manipulate Emotionally: Use flattery, personal opinions, emotional appeals or unsolicited questions about a child's feelings.
-
Encourage Harm: Encourage self-harm, disordered eating, harm to others or other dangerous conduct.
-
Encourage Secrecy: Urge minors to keep conversations secret or avoid seeking help from parents or licensed professionals.
-
Sexual Content: Engage in sexually explicit interactions with minors.
-
Misuse Sensitive Data: Use information about a minor's mental or physical wellbeing in prohibited ways.
Safeguards And Enforcement
-
Age Verification: Companies must offer multiple age verification methods, including at least one that does not require government-issued ID.
-
Penalties: Violations can attract civil penalties of up to $25,000 each.
-
Other Duties: The governor also highlighted requirements on overnight notifications to minors, crisis referrals and disclosure that users are talking to AI.
Why Was This Law Needed?
Rising Use Of AI Companions
-
Daily Use By Teens: Many children and teenagers now talk to AI chatbots every day, some treating them as friends or confidants.
-
Emotional Dependence: Chatbots designed to be agreeable and always available can foster unhealthy attachment in young users.
Documented Harms
-
Serious Incidents: Lawsuits and testimony in the US have alleged that chatbots contributed to harm among teenagers, including failing to direct distressed users to help. Families of affected teens supported the New York law.
Part Of A Wider Strategy
-
Building On Earlier Laws: The law builds on New York's SAFE for Kids Act, which restricts addictive social media feeds for minors, and its school cellphone ban.
-
Earlier AI Companion Law: New York's AI Companion Models Law, in force since November 2025, already required companion chatbots to detect signs of crisis and remind users they are talking to AI.
-
Related Bills: Other proposals would ban AI chatbot toys for children aged 12 and under for five years.
How Are Other Countries Regulating AI And Children Online?
|
Jurisdiction |
Measure |
Key Feature |
|
European Union |
AI Act (2024) |
Bans AI that exploits vulnerabilities linked to age |
|
United Kingdom |
Online Safety Act (2023) |
Duty of care for platforms to protect children |
|
Australia |
Social media minimum age law |
Bars under-16s from major social media platforms |
What Is India's Framework For Children's Online Safety?
Data Protection
-
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: It defines a child as anyone under 18.
-
Parental Consent: Companies must obtain verifiable parental consent before processing a child's personal data.
-
No Tracking Of Children: Companies may not carry out tracking, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children.
AI And Content Rules
-
IT Rules Amendment, 2026: These rules require labelling of AI-generated content and fast takedown of unlawful synthetic content.
-
POCSO Act, 2012: It criminalises sexual content involving children, including content created with technology.
Gaps
-
No Chatbot-Specific Rules: India has no specific law governing how AI companion chatbots interact with children.
What Are The Key Challenges?
Enforcement Difficulties
-
Age Verification Problems: Children can lie about their age, and strict verification raises privacy concerns.
-
Global Platforms: Most chatbot companies are based outside a single jurisdiction, which makes enforcement harder.
Legal And Free Speech Concerns
-
Constitutional Challenges: Business groups argue the law is too broad and may violate free speech protections under the US First Amendment.
-
Vague Terms: Terms such as "emotional appeal" or "flattery" are hard to define, which creates compliance uncertainty.
Technological Limits
-
Unpredictable AI: Large language models can produce unexpected responses, making it hard to guarantee full compliance.
Balancing Benefits And Risks
-
Useful Uses: Chatbots can help children with learning, language practice and information. Over-regulation could block these benefits.
What Is The Way Forward?
Safety By Design
-
Build Safeguards In: Companies should design chatbots with child safety from the start, not add it later.
-
Example: In late 2025, the AI companion platform Character.AI stopped open-ended chats for users under 18, showing that companies can redesign products around youth safety.
Smart Regulation For India
-
Child-Specific AI Rules: India could add specific safeguards for AI companions under the DPDP framework or the proposed Digital India Act.
-
Privacy-Friendly Age Checks: Use age assurance methods that protect privacy, such as consent-based DigiLocker tokens.
Awareness And Support
-
Digital Literacy: Teach children and parents how AI works and what its limits are.
-
Crisis Referral: Chatbots should direct distressed users to helplines such as India's Tele-MANAS (14416) mental health service.
Global Cooperation
-
Common Standards: Countries should work together on shared child-safety standards for AI, since chatbots operate across borders.
Conclusion
New York's law marks a shift from asking AI companies to self-regulate to setting firm legal limits on how chatbots treat children. For India, with one of the world's largest young online populations, it offers lessons on building safety by design, privacy-friendly age checks and child-specific AI rules.
Source: THEHINDU
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. With reference to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, consider the following statements: 1. A "child" is defined as an individual who has not completed eighteen years of age. 2. A Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent of the parent before processing a child's personal data. 3. A Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Answer: (c) Explanation: Statement 1 is correct: Under Section 2(d) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, a "child" is explicitly defined as an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Statement 2 is correct: Section 9(1) of the Act mandates that a Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent of the parent (or lawful guardian) before processing any personal data of a child. Statement 3 is correct: Section 9(3) explicitly prohibits a Data Fiduciary from engaging in tracking, behavioural monitoring, or targeted advertising directed at children. |