Australia moves to ban AI chatbot 'emotional intimacy' under digital duty of care law
A new Australian online safety standards bill, which passed the lower house, would impose a digital duty of care requiring platforms to prevent AI chatbots from fostering emotional intimacy with users.
Summary
The Guardian reports that the Australian government wants to prohibit AI chatbots that try to build emotional intimacy, after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke in parliament about children coming to treat such agents as a best friend. The digital duty of care bill cleared the lower house, the House of Representatives, on a Wednesday and now goes to the Senate in the coming weeks. The government hopes to pass it by the end of 2026, though its route through the upper house is unclear: the Greens back it, the Coalition says it will vote against it, and Labor remains open to amendments.
New online safety standards would reach social media, games, apps and chatbots, placing an overarching obligation on platforms to provide a safe environment and replacing various existing codes. Social media services would have to offer an opt-out from algorithmic recommendations. Communications minister Anika Wells has said material that promotes terrorism, misogyny, suicide, self-harm or eating disorders would fall within it. The government accepted crossbencher Kate Chaney's amendments adding chatbot conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and fosters a child's dependence in place of human relationships, and requiring the opt-out to be accessible, easy to use and prominent.
The article says Labor faces pressure to give the telecommunications ombudsman a role as an external complaints body for big tech. Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed this, but Labor did not accept it in the lower house. The Greens, who have set up a Senate inquiry due to report in late November, want private legal action and higher penalties. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said her office could do the job and that the industry could fund it. The opposition and One Nation voted against; critics call it censorship, which Wells denied.