8 artifacts matching
PIPEDA Findings #2026-004: Commissioner-Initiated Complaint Concerning X Corp. and X.AI LLC
A commissioner-initiated federal investigation, conducted jointly with provincial privacy counterparts, into X Corp. and X.AI LLC's compliance with Canada's PIPEDA in connection with Grok's image-generation feature. The investigation found the companies enabled generation of large volumes of non-consensual sexualized deepfake images without adequate safeguards or valid consent, and details resulting remedial commitments.
When AI becomes a friend: Child rights risks, harms, and regulatory responses to AI chatbots and companions
A UNICEF policy brief examining how AI chatbots and companions bear on children's rights, comparing regulatory responses across six jurisdictions (as of May 2026) and setting out priority safeguarding, accountability, and oversight actions. It groups harms as technical, psychological, developmental, and social.
The spread of AI companions and the challenges they generate
An EPRS briefing for the European Parliament surveying the rapid growth of LLM-powered companion platforms (such as Character.AI and Replika) and their social, psychological, commercial, and environmental impacts. It maps how the AI Act, Digital Services Act, and GDPR partially apply in the absence of EU-specific companion rules.
AI chatbots and online regulation – what you need to know
Ofcom's explainer sets out how AI chatbots fall within the UK Online Safety Act, published amid reports of chatbots imitating real and deceased people and encouraging self-harm and suicide. It clarifies that chatbots meeting the Act's definitions of user-to-user services, search services, or pornography publishers are in scope, that AI-generated content shared by users is regulated like human-generated content, and that services allowing only one-to-one interaction with the bot itself may fall outside the Act. The document notes Ofcom is supporting the UK Government as it considers possible changes to these powers, and points to Ofcom's discussion paper series on GenAI risks (red teaming for GenAI harms, answer engines, deepfake defences).
6(b) Orders to File Special Report Regarding Advertising, Safety, and Data Handling Practices by Companies Offering Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Companion Products or Services
The US Federal Trade Commission issued compulsory Section 6(b) orders to seven companies operating consumer-facing AI companion chatbots — Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI OpCo, Snap, and X.AI — seeking information on how they measure, test, and monitor negative impacts on children and teens. The study covers monetization of user engagement, character development and approval, pre- and post-deployment safety testing, mitigation of negative impacts, disclosures to users and parents, age-based access restrictions, and personal data handling. Section 6(b) studies do not have a specific law enforcement purpose but typically culminate in a public staff report; as of July 2026 no staff report from this inquiry has been published.
The fall and rise of Iruda: Reassembling AI through ethics-in-action
Peer-reviewed case study of South Korea's Iruda (Lee Luda) chatbot — its 2021 sexual-harassment, hate-speech, and data-consent controversy and its 2022 relaunch. Argues the harms arose from developer/user/algorithm/data assemblages and that practical 'ethics-in-action' interventions enabled a safer relaunch.
Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)
Non-binding European Commission guidance (reference C(2025) 5052 final) interpreting the AI Act's Article 5 prohibited-practices provisions, including manipulative/deceptive techniques and exploitation of vulnerabilities of specific groups. The document includes worked examples specific to conversational and companion AI systems to illustrate how the prohibitions apply.
General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (EU AI Act, Articles 53 and 55)
Voluntary code of practice published 10 July 2025, drafted by 13 independent experts through a multi-stakeholder process (1,000+ participants) facilitated by the EU AI Office, to help providers of general-purpose AI models demonstrate compliance with EU AI Act Articles 53 and 55. It has three chapters — Transparency, Copyright, and Safety and Security — the first two applying to all GPAI providers and the third only to providers of models with systemic risk. The Commission and AI Board confirmed it as an adequate voluntary compliance tool; signatories (23+, coordinated via a Signatory Taskforce chaired by the AI Office) gain reduced administrative burden and greater legal certainty.