Duty of Care for Child Protection in AI Chatbots: A Comparative Analysis of EU, US, and Chinese Regulatory Frameworks

Main Article Content

Anna Xu

Keywords

AI chatbots, minor protection, duty of care

Abstract

This article raises two critical questions: How do the European Union, the United States, and China regulate AI chatbots? Should these systems be recharacterized as products with design defects rather than protected speech? This study adopts a comparative legal approach to the regulatory frameworks in Europe, America, and China. The paper analyzes three particular models: the EU’s precautionary risk-based model, China’s administrative oversight, and the US’s tort-based litigation. The findings suggest that the notion of AI as a neutral tool is increasingly untenable. Traditional safe harbor protections are no longer enough to protect children. The paper presents a triple-layer framework to strengthen Duty of Care. This combines China’s pre-deployment (ex-ante) administrative filing at the input layer, the EU’s safety-by-design standards at the model layer, and the US’s post-harm (ex-post) product liability at the output layer. By establishing a triple-layer framework, regulators can effectively intervene in real time to prevent harmful manipulation of minors by AI chatbots.

Abstract 0 | PDF Downloads 0

References

  • [1] Kurian, N. (2024). No, Alexa, no!: Designing child-safe AI and protecting children from the risks of the empathy gap in large language models. Learning, Media and Technology, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2024.2367052
  • [2] Kurian, N. (2025). Designing child-safe conversational AI: Three dilemmas for responsible AI chatbot design. In CUI '24: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (pp. 1–5). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640794.3665545
  • [3] Hopkin, N. (2024). Understanding the dangers of AI chatbots and safeguarding children: A digital ethics perspective. The Cambridge Consultancy Group.
  • [4] Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 117–150.
  • [5] European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
  • [6] Zhang, W. (2023). Regulatory governance of generative AI in China: Shifting from content to algorithm. Journal of Digital Economy, 2, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdec.2023.09.001
  • [7] Cyberspace Administration of China. (2023). Interim measures for the management of generative artificial intelligence services.
  • [8] Teo, S. A., Porsdam Mann, S., & Jurcys, P. (2025). The ethical and legal complexities of regulating companion AI chatbots. Journal of Medical Ethics. [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110233
  • [9] Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other (3rd ed.). Basic Books.
  • [10] Branch, S. (2025). AI companions are not your teen's friend. Issues in Science and Technology, 41(4), 80–83. https://issues.org/ai-companions-teen-mental-health-branch/