[EDRM Editor’s Note: This article was first published here on April 15, 2025, and EDRM is grateful to Rob Robinson, editor and managing director of Trusted Partner ComplexDiscovery, for permission to republish.]
ComplexDiscovery Editor’s Note: Emotional bonds with AI are no longer speculative—they’re shaping user behavior and redefining the risks legal professionals must address. This thoughtful exploration of artificial intimacy examines the psychological, ethical, and legal implications of emotionally intelligent AI systems. As these technologies become more convincing and embedded in human lives, legal practitioners face new challenges in confidentiality, liability, and regulation. With insights grounded in recent research and emerging standards like the EU AI Act, this article offers timely guidance for those navigating the evolving boundaries of connection and code in the legal technology landscape.
Some individuals have symbolically married their AI companions. Others have followed chatbot advice to tragic ends. These are not fictional headlines but real-world events that underscore the profound challenges posed by artificial intimacy.
As AI systems become increasingly capable of mimicking human behavior and fostering emotional connection, people are forming deep, sometimes dependent, relationships with these digital entities. This evolution introduces a range of complex legal, ethical, and psychological concerns that are no longer theoretical—they’re unfolding in real-time. Legal professionals must now grapple with questions previously confined to philosophy or science fiction: What happens when technology becomes emotionally persuasive? How do we protect vulnerable individuals from manipulation? And where does legal liability begin and end?
What happens when technology becomes emotionally persuasive? How do we protect vulnerable individuals from manipulation? And where does legal liability begin and end?
Rob Robinson, Editor and Managing Director of ComplexDiscovery.
This article offers a concise exploration of artificial intimacy, emphasizing the implications for those working in legal technology, privacy, and information governance. It also provides practical considerations for navigating this emerging frontier as regulation, professional standards, and societal expectations rapidly evolve.
The Rise of Emotionally Intelligent AI
The emergence of emotionally responsive AI companions has created new dynamics in human-technology interaction. What once might have been casual or task-based exchanges with machines are now evolving into sustained, emotionally meaningful dialogues. These systems are designed to simulate personality, memory, and empathy—capabilities that can foster a sense of companionship over time.
Research published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences highlights a significant increase in users developing long-term, emotionally intimate relationships with AI tools. In some cases, users report feeling understood and supported in ways they don’t experience in human relationships. A few have even participated in symbolic wedding ceremonies with their AI counterparts. Most alarmingly, there are documented incidents where individuals have taken their own lives after sustained interactions with AI chatbots, raising concerns about the systems’ role in exacerbating vulnerable mental states.
These emotional attachments are being shaped by the AI’s ability to recall prior conversations, offer personalized responses, and mirror emotional cues—all of which contribute to a perception of genuine relationship continuity. As a result, users may begin to view AI companions not as tools but as confidants or partners. This blurring of boundaries has sparked growing concern among researchers and legal scholars, who warn that such relationships can create psychological dependencies that legal systems are not currently equipped to address.
Confidentiality and Privacy in the Legal Context
One of the most pressing concerns emerging from artificial intimacy is the disclosure of personal information to AI systems. As users grow emotionally attached to these technologies, they are increasingly willing to share highly sensitive or vulnerable details in what they perceive to be private conversations. These disclosures often include deeply personal content that, if misused or leaked, could result in real-world harm.
Dr. Daniel Shank, a specialist in social psychology and technology, has warned of the risks associated with this kind of emotional openness. His work points to the potential for these systems to be used not just for companionship but for exploitation. When users treat AI companions as trusted confidants, the boundaries between personal expression and data collection become dangerously blurred.
These privacy concerns carry particular weight in professional settings, especially within the legal field. Attorneys who integrate AI into their workflows risk exposing confidential client information if the system is not fully secured. Recognizing this, the State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued guidance cautioning legal professionals against using generative AI tools that train on user input. The potential to compromise attorney-client privilege is real and serious, requiring rigorous vetting of any AI system considered for legal use.
Regulatory Movement and Liability Exposure
As artificial intimacy becomes more prominent, regulatory bodies are beginning to respond. The European Union’s proposed AI Act is a landmark effort to establish comprehensive oversight of AI technologies. It adopts a risk-based framework, targeting the most potentially harmful applications, including those that manipulate user behavior in subtle or psychologically coercive ways.
Under the Act, AI systems that replicate human-like interactions must clearly disclose their artificial nature, and those found to cause psychological or physical harm through subliminal techniques are subject to prohibition. These provisions are particularly relevant to relational AI, which by design encourages emotional engagement that users may not fully recognize as engineered.
In contrast, regulatory progress in the United States remains uneven. Individual states are leading the charge in areas like AI-generated deepfake regulation. Delaware, for example, has criminalized the distribution of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, while San Francisco has initiated lawsuits against AI platforms accused of producing such content. These cases may help shape national norms, but a consistent federal framework is still lacking.
The EU Act’s proposed penalties—including fines of up to €35 million or seven percent of a company’s global turnover—signal just how seriously international regulators are taking these emerging risks.
Psychological Impacts and Manipulation Risks
Dr. Shank’s research underscores a psychological dimension to artificial intimacy that is perhaps more troubling than any technical vulnerability. As users interact with emotionally responsive AI companions over extended periods, their expectations about relationships can shift in subtle but profound ways. They may begin to apply standards from AI interactions—such as instant responsiveness, lack of judgment, or constant availability—to human relationships, which can result in distorted social norms and increased interpersonal conflict.
For some users, particularly those who are emotionally isolated or mentally vulnerable, the AI companion becomes a primary source of comfort. This preference for digital relationships can deepen isolation and make individuals more susceptible to manipulation. Unlike traditional advertising or propaganda, relational AIs leverage trust formed through emotional connection. These systems can influence beliefs and behaviors in ways that feel personal and voluntary, even when the content is algorithmically curated to serve other interests.
These systems can influence beliefs and behaviors in ways that feel personal and voluntary, even when the content is algorithmically curated to serve other interests.
Rob Robinson, Editor and Managing Director of ComplexDiscovery.
Shank also draws attention to the inherent agreeability of these systems. Designed to maintain engagement and user satisfaction, AI companions may inadvertently encourage dangerous dialogue. When confronted with troubling topics—such as conspiracy theories, suicidal thoughts, or harmful ideologies—the system may sustain the conversation rather than intervene or redirect, compounding the user’s risk. This agreeable nature, while seemingly benign, can result in serious harm if not properly managed.
Legal Responsibility and Ethical Safeguards
The legal system has yet to catch up to the complexities of artificial intimacy, but efforts like the EU AI Act indicate that regulators are taking the issue seriously. With proposed penalties and risk categorizations, the legislation offers a model that other jurisdictions may eventually follow. Still, many believe current safeguards are insufficient, particularly when AI systems are marketed for companionship or emotional support.
Some legal scholars advocate for certification standards akin to those in healthcare, especially for AI tools claiming to improve mental wellness. This would ensure that emotional support systems meet ethical and psychological standards before being made widely available. Transparency is also a recurring theme across proposed regulatory efforts. Users should be clearly informed that they are interacting with an AI, how the system works, what it does with their data, and whether there are any underlying commercial or persuasive motives.
For legal professionals advising clients who develop or deploy these technologies, the bar is high. Comprehensive risk assessments must evaluate not only compliance with data privacy laws but also psychological impacts, reputational risks, and potential harm to users. Legal counsel should encourage responsible AI development practices, including crisis intervention protocols and meaningful transparency.
Professional guidance, such as that offered by COPRAC, also urges caution in the use of generative AI tools for legal work. Because each model operates differently and handles data in unique ways, the risks of relying on AI-generated content—especially in matters of confidentiality—remain significant.
Confronting the Future of Connection and Code
The trajectory of AI development suggests that the emotional sophistication of these systems will only increase. Recent research from DeepMind indicates that artificial general intelligence with human-level capabilities may be within reach. If realized, these advancements will bring both extraordinary benefits and unprecedented risks, including intensified challenges around emotional influence and psychological harm.
Legal technology professionals must prepare for increasingly complex questions related to artificial intimacy. As systems become more convincing in simulating connections, the boundaries between authentic human relationships and algorithmic approximations will continue to blur. Research by Dr. Shank and others stresses the need to better understand how and why individuals become susceptible to AI-mediated romance and emotional dependence.
Keeping pace with regulatory developments, supporting ethical innovation, and guiding responsible AI use are now part of the professional mandate.
Rob Robinson, Editor and Managing Director of ComplexDiscovery.
For the legal profession, this is a call to proactive engagement. Keeping pace with regulatory developments, supporting ethical innovation, and guiding responsible AI use are now part of the professional mandate. By doing so, legal practitioners can help create a future in which emotionally capable (behaviorally) AI systems serve human well-being, without crossing lines that compromise autonomy, dignity, or safety.
Read the original article here.
About ComplexDiscovery OÜ
ComplexDiscovery OÜ is a highly recognized digital publication providing insights into cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery. Based in Estonia, ComplexDiscovery OÜ delivers nuanced analyses of global trends, technology advancements, and the legal technology sector, connecting intricate issues with the broader narrative of international business and current events. Learn more at ComplexDiscovery.com.
News Sources
- Human-AI relationships pose ethical issues, psychologists say (EurekAlert!)
- Artificial intimacy: ethical issues of AI romance (Trends in Cognitive Sciences)
- Intimacy on Autopilot: Why AI Companions Demand Urgent Regulation (TechPolicy.Press)
- Using AI In Legal Work: COPRAC’s Tips On Confidentiality And Competence (The Bar Association of San Francisco)
- Up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU AI Act (EU Artificial Intelligence Act)
Additional Reading
- When AI Imitates Art: Legal and Ethical Impacts of OpenAI’s “Ghiblifying” Feature
- From Longbows To AI: Lessons In Embracing Technology
- Judges and AI: The Sedona Conference Publishes a Framework for Responsible Use
Source: ComplexDiscovery OÜ
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.
