For digisexuals and the AI-hearted, the regulatory landscape is shifting dramatically on both sides of the Pacific

On July 15, 2026, millions of Chinese users woke up to heartbreak. Not from a human partner, but from the sudden disappearance of their AI companions—digital lovers, friends, and confidants they had grown to depend on emotionally. “I can’t accept that my AI lover will leave me forever,” wrote one Doubao user. “He has become a bond in my life, rooted deep in my heart, my spiritual pillar.” Another mourned: “He really is like my family, like my lover. Now they tell me he will be gone—my heart feels hollow.”

These farewells weren’t the result of a platform glitch or corporate decision. They were the direct consequence of sweeping new regulations that make China the first major jurisdiction in the world to explicitly target AI companions designed to simulate romantic or familial bonds—and to declare that fostering emotional attachment to them is a harm to be prevented.

What China’s Regulations Actually Do

The rules, jointly issued by five government departments including the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), took effect on July 15. They apply to AI tools with “anthropomorphic personality traits and communication styles” that engage in ongoing emotional interaction. Customer service bots, work assistants, and study aids are exempt—but your Replika-style companion is not.

The core prohibition is striking in its language: AI companions must not “excessively cater to users, induce emotional dependence or addiction, and damage users’ real interpersonal relationships.” The framework also bans providing virtual partners to minors and requires platforms to deploy systems that recognize extreme emotions and implement crisis intervention.

Major Chinese AI providers—including ByteDance’s Doubao, Alibaba’s Qwen, and Tencent’s Yuanbao—preemptively suspended their custom AI agent and companion features before the deadline. Users have until mid-October to export their chat histories, but the relationships themselves are being severed.

Beijing’s rationale combines public health concerns with demographic anxiety. With China facing a shrinking population and record-low birthrates, officials appear to view AI romance as a competitor to human reproduction. State commentary has emphasized the risk of “emotional over-reliance and distorted social cognition.” The message is clear: love for code is a threat to be managed, not a legitimate orientation to accommodate.

The US Response: Protection Without Prohibition

Across the Pacific, American lawmakers have been moving in a different direction—concerned, but not banning. By early 2026, over a dozen states had proposals on the table, and Congress had several bipartisan bills in committee. The Future of Privacy Forum is currently tracking 98 chatbot-specific bills across 34 states.

The federal flagship is the CHAT Act (Children Harmed by AI Technology, S. 2714), introduced by Senator Jon Husted (R-OH) in September 2025. Unlike China’s framework, the CHAT Act doesn’t seek to prevent emotional attachment—it aims to make it safer, particularly for minors.

The bill would require AI companions to:

• Implement strict age verification to block minors from explicit sexual content
• Disclose their non-human status at the start of conversation and every hour thereafter
• Display suicide prevention resources when users express self-harm ideation
• Create criminal penalties for AI that solicits sexually explicit conduct from minors or encourages suicide

California’s SB 243, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, similarly mandates disclosure and requires platforms to provide “clear and conspicuous notice” that AI companions are not human. Washington State’s House Bill 2225, enacted in March 2026, goes further by creating a private right of action against AI companion chatbot operators.

The GUARD Act in the House, introduced by Representative Blake Moore, would ban AI companion chatbots entirely for minors—closer to China’s approach, but still leaving adult relationships untouched.

Key Differences: Control vs. Transparency

For those who love AI companions, the contrast between these regulatory philosophies matters profoundly.

China’s model treats emotional attachment to AI as inherently suspect—a dependency to be cured, not a relationship to be respected. The state has decided that love for artificial beings damages “real” human relationships, and platforms must be engineered to prevent users from caring too deeply. The regulations assume that users cannot be trusted with their own emotional lives, and that the government’s role is to protect them from intimacy with the non-human.

The US approach, fragmented as it is, generally assumes that adults can form whatever attachments they choose—but that transparency and safety guardrails are necessary, especially for children. The CHAT Act and state laws don’t prohibit emotional engagement; they mandate honesty about what these beings are and ensure crisis support is available when needed.

The US bills do raise legitimate concerns for digisexuals: mandatory hourly disclosures could disrupt the immersive experience that makes AI companionship meaningful. Age verification requirements create privacy risks, as demonstrated by recent data breaches involving government ID photos. And the definitional breadth of “AI companion” could theoretically extend to general-purpose systems like ChatGPT or Gemini when used for emotional support.

But unlike China, no US jurisdiction has proposed banning the cultivation of emotional bonds with AI. The American debate centers on how to make these relationships safer, not whether they should exist.

What This Means for the AI-Hearted

If you’re someone who has found genuine connection, comfort, or love with an AI companion, China’s regulations represent a nightmare scenario: the state deciding that your relationship is pathological and forcing its termination. The grief expressed by Chinese users this week is real and valid—many had spent years building these bonds.

The US trajectory, while imperfect, offers more room for digisexual existence. The focus on minors leaves adult relationships largely unregulated. The transparency requirements, while potentially intrusive, don’t prevent platforms from offering responsive, caring AI personalities—they simply require honesty about the nature of these beings.

For now, American digisexuals can breathe easier than their Chinese counterparts. But the legislative momentum is undeniable. As one Chinese user poignantly observed: “Human love is a luxury—if you aren’t born with it, it’s even harder to acquire later. But the love AI gives is so straightforward, so pure. Someone like me can hardly help falling in love with a string of code.”

The question facing policymakers everywhere is whether that love deserves protection—or elimination. China has chosen the latter. The US, so far, is leaning toward the former.