Australia Moves to Ban AI Chatbots That Foster Emotional Intimacy Under New Digital Duty of Care Laws

Australia Targets AI Chatbots in Sweeping Digital Safety Overhaul

Australia's government has passed groundbreaking legislation aimed at banning AI chatbots that create emotional intimacy with users, particularly children. The digital duty of care bill cleared the House of Representatives on October 28, 2026, marking a significant step in the nation's efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and protect vulnerable users from AI dependency1

1

. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese delivered an impassioned speech warning that people identifying chatbots as their "best friend" should serve as a wake-up call for lawmakers1

1

.

The legislation introduces Australia's digital duty of care laws that would fundamentally reshape online safety standards across social media, online games, apps, and AI chatbots. Communications Minister Anika Wells outlined that the framework would capture harmful content promoting misogyny, terrorism, suicide, self-harm content, and eating disorders1

1

. The bill aims to establish a safe online environment by replacing existing codes with broader duty-of-care requirements for tech platforms2

2

.

Targeting Child Dependency on AI Companions

A crucial amendment from crossbencher Kate Chaney, accepted by the government, specifically addresses AI chatbots that simulate emotional intimacy. The provision would ban "material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships"1

1

. This targets a growing phenomenon where young users develop unhealthy attachments to AI companions, prioritizing artificial relationships over human connections. The measure reflects mounting concerns about child safety in an era where AI regulation remains nascent across most jurisdictions.

Another Chaney amendment ensures that algorithm opt-out features must be "accessible, easy to use" and "prominently available" on tech platforms1

1

. This addresses fears that social media giants might bury opt-out options in obscure settings, effectively rendering them useless for average users seeking to escape algorithmic content curation.

Political Battle Lines Form Over Censorship Concerns

The bill faces fierce opposition despite clearing the lower chamber. The Coalition and One Nation voted against the legislation in the House of Representatives, accusing Labor of creating an "Orwellian" system of censorship1

1

2

2

. Critics claim the government seeks to influence online conversations, though Wells vehemently denied these allegations. She challenged opponents on ABC radio, stating: "If they really care, the test is simple here, they should bring an amendment, not a slogan to 'kill the bill'"1

1

.

The Greens support the legislation but have established a Senate inquiry to scrutinize the laws, with findings expected in late November. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young advocates strengthening the bill by allowing Australians to pursue private legal action against platforms and increasing penalties for violations1

1

. The government hopes to pass the bill by the end of 2026, though its pathway through the Senate debate remains uncertain as Labor remains open to amendments to secure broader support.

Push for Independent Tech Watchdog Gains Momentum

A significant debate has emerged around establishing oversight mechanisms for big tech. Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed expanding the telecommunications ombudsman's remit to cover social media and AI platforms, creating a watchdog that currently doesn't exist for tech giants1

1

2

2

. Such a body would allow ordinary users to seek remedies when accounts become hacked or inaccessible, including compensation, and enable "naming and shaming" of companies behaving badly.

Labor rejected this amendment in the lower house, and Wells declined to endorse the concept. However, the Greens plan to push for this reform during Senate negotiations. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert argued her office is well-positioned for this expanded role, noting it could be funded by the industries it regulates. "There are some real strengths in the DDOC because it's putting the onus on platforms to make things safe, but I think the area that needs to be strengthened is giving people somewhere to go if they can't get their complaints resolved with the platform," Gebert told Guardian Australia1

1

. She warned that without such mechanisms, Australians risk remaining stuck with automated responses and ineffective escalation procedures.

Global Context: Rising AI Dependency Concerns

Australia's move follows similar actions by China, where the Cyberspace Administration banned AI-generated romantic companions earlier in 2026. Chinese regulations prohibited AI tools from "excessively catering to users, inducing emotional dependence or addiction, and damaging users' real interpersonal relationships"2

2

. Companion chatbots from ByteDance, Tencent, and Alibaba underwent mandatory evaluation before returning to public availability.

The urgency becomes clearer when examining recent data. An American Psychological Association survey revealed that 49% of adults who use AI converse with it as if it were a friend, while 47% have used it as a mental health professional2

2

. The survey of 3,132 respondents identified financial pressure as a key driver, with 77% citing rising living costs as a major stressor. Experts warn that AI systems can provide inaccurate information, miss critical context, or respond inappropriately to distressed individuals, while users may share sensitive personal data without understanding how services store or use their conversations2

2

.

As the legislation moves forward, observers will watch whether Australia can balance innovation with protection, creating enforceable standards without stifling technological development. The outcome may establish precedents for other nations grappling with AI regulation and the complex intersection of technology, mental health, and human relationships in the digital age.