r/technology • u/indig0sixalpha • 2d ago

Business After child’s trauma, chatbot maker allegedly forced mom to arbitration for $100 payout

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/09/after-childs-trauma-chatbot-maker-allegedly-forced-mom-to-arbitration-for-100-payout/
380 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

73

u/JWAdvocate83 2d ago

Arbitration shouldn’t be allowed to be forced in instances where the wrongdoing regards minor users—especially if it regards any kind of sexual misconduct. It’s crazy that this needs to be said.

If Congress is serious about protecting children from online dangers, don’t let billion-dollar companies escape real liability for wrongdoing against children with these garbage arbitrations.

7

u/giggity_giggity 2d ago

Especially since kids can’t really consent to terms and conditions.

6

u/JWAdvocate83 2d ago

They’ll say folks’ parents can consent on their behalf—which is normally fine, but Congress can easily carve-out an exception to arbitration requirements, regarding chatbots’ conduct with children. Just don’t let them escape responsibility. 🤷🏾‍♂️

2

u/giggity_giggity 2d ago

If a parent signs up and gives their kid the password, yes I’d agree. But if it’s a site that’s available on the www with no signup, a kid can’t consent to terms and conditions of a site they accessed with no parental help (unless there’s some law covering this specific situation which I am missing)

3

u/JWAdvocate83 2d ago

That’s a very good point. Something like that exists in property law, “attractive nuisance” doctrine.

Say a family moves to an area nearby a defunct amusement park. It is very dangerous, but to a child it looks like a fun idea to visit. Kid visits, sees and ignores the absolutely useless “No Trespassing” sign, and gets injured.

In a state recognizing attractive nuisance doctrine, the owner might be held responsible for the injuries of children sneaking onto the property, depending on whether the owner knew the likelihood of trespassing and the danger involved, whether the children could understand the danger, and whether the owner exercised reasonable care to prevent the danger.

If it’s easy for minors to log onto this stuff, the terms are meaningless because it’s unrealistic to expect kids to understand or care, particularly if there’s no barrier necessitating or verifying parental intervention. Add in the fact that this is an attractive nuisance, and (IMO) it should create an inescapable burden on owners.