Privacy evidence

AI companion privacy & safety incident tracker

A maintained timeline of regulatory actions, complaints, law changes and major safety-policy shifts that affect how we score AI companion apps.

How to read this

App-specific enforcement or complaints can affect an app's privacy score. Category-wide laws affect our evidence standard, but they do not punish a single app unless the source names that app.

Complaint

Advocacy groups filed an FTC complaint about Replika marketing claims

Replika / Luka

The filing asks the FTC to investigate alleged deceptive and unfair practices. It is a complaint, not an FTC enforcement order, so we describe it carefully.

Source: Tech Justice Law Project complaint and petition
Safety change

Character.AI began removing open-ended chat for under-18 users

Character.AI

The company said under-18 users would lose open-ended character chat and move to a more restricted experience. We treat Character.AI as adults-for-chat in reviews and comparisons.

Source: Character.AI company blog
Law

California SB 243 companion chatbot requirements took effect

Category-wide

Covered companion chatbots face disclosure, safety-protocol and reporting duties. The law reinforces why privacy and safety are separate scoring dimensions from conversation quality.

Source: California SB 243 bill text via LegiScan

What this tracker changes in the rubric

We do not treat privacy as a vibe check. We look for regulatory history, public complaints, data deletion controls, training-use disclosures, minor safety controls and whether the product encourages users to share highly sensitive personal information.

A complaint alone is not the same as a regulator finding wrongdoing. A law is not the same as an app violation. The timeline exists so the reasoning is visible and so future review updates can point to specific evidence instead of vague concern.

Related reading: our AI companion privacy checklist, data access guide, and 100-point scoring method.