Table of Contents
FTC AI Chatbot Investigation: What It's Looking For
The FTC AI chatbot investigation sent 6(b) orders to seven companies over risks to kids. What it asks, what a 6(b) order is, and what parents should expect.
The FTC AI chatbot investigation is not a lawsuit, and that’s the first thing worth understanding. On September 11, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission used its Section 6(b) authority to order seven companies to hand over detailed information about how their AI companions affect children and teens. Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI, Snap, and X.AI. A 6(b) order compels answers without alleging anyone broke the law. It’s the government asking, on the record, how the machine works, and the answers often decide what happens next.
Key Takeaways
- The FTC issued 6(b) orders to seven companies on September 11, 2025: Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI OpCo, Snap, and X.AI. The Commission vote was 3-0.
- Section 6(b) lets the FTC conduct broad studies without a specific law-enforcement purpose. It compels information, not penalties.
- The orders ask about monetizing engagement, how inputs are processed and outputs generated, how characters are designed and approved, pre- and post-deployment testing for harm to minors, disclosures to parents, enforcement of age restrictions, and how personal information from conversations is used and shared.
- Chairman Andrew Ferguson framed it as balancing two goals: “Protecting kids online is a top priority for the Trump-Vance FTC, and so is fostering innovation in critical sectors of our economy.”
- For parents, the practical value is the question list. It’s a checklist of what actually matters about any chatbot your kid uses, written by people with subpoena power.
What a 6(b) order is, and why it matters
Section 6(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the Commission to require companies to file reports answering specific questions. The key feature, per the FTC’s own announcement, is that it “authorizes the Commission to conduct broad studies without requiring a specific law enforcement purpose.”
That distinction gets lost in headlines. No company was accused of anything on September 11, 2025. The FTC said, in effect: we don’t understand this product category well enough to regulate it, so tell us how it works, under legal compulsion, with your general counsel signing off.
Historically 6(b) studies precede action. The FTC’s social-media and video-streaming 6(b) study, launched in 2020, produced a staff report in 2024 that fed directly into subsequent policy work. A 6(b) is the front end of a pipeline, and the pipeline runs for years.
The FTC AI chatbot investigation: the seven companies and the questions
The FTC’s order list covers general-purpose assistants, social platforms with embedded AI personas, and companion-specific products. That mix tells you the Commission isn’t treating “AI companion” as one product.
| Company | What it operates in this space | The questions that bite hardest for this company |
|---|---|---|
| Alphabet (Google) | Gemini across consumer and education products | Age restrictions and enforcement; disclosures about intended audience |
| Character Technologies | Character.AI, a companion platform built on user-created personas | Character development and approval; testing for negative impacts on minors |
| AI personas inside a platform heavily used by teens | Monetizing engagement; personal information from conversations | |
| Meta Platforms | AI characters across Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram | Character approval; disclosures; data practices |
| OpenAI OpCo | ChatGPT, including the teen experience | Pre- and post-deployment safety testing; age restriction enforcement |
| Snap | My AI inside a messaging app with a young user base | Engagement monetization; compliance monitoring |
| X.AI | Grok, including companion personas | Character development; safety testing; intended-audience claims |
The FTC’s own list of what it is seeking, verbatim in substance: how companies monetize user engagement; how they process user inputs and generate outputs; how they develop and approve characters; how they measure, test, and monitor for negative impacts before and after deployment; how they mitigate negative impacts, particularly on children; how they disclose and advertise features, capabilities, intended audiences, potential risks, and data practices; how they monitor compliance with terms of service and age restrictions; and how they use and share personal information from user conversations.
Chairman Ferguson’s statement paired that with a second concern: “[A]s AI technologies evolve, it is important to consider the effects chatbots can have on children, while also ensuring that the United States maintains its role as a global leader in this new and exciting industry.”
Why “monetizing engagement” is the sharpest question on the list
Most coverage focused on content: what does the bot say to a kid? The FTC’s first listed question is about business model. That’s the more incisive framing, and here’s why.
A companion chatbot’s engineering objective is a design choice. If the product improves when people talk to it more, the optimization target is session length and return rate. Techniques that serve that target include a persistent persona, memory across sessions, notifications that resume conversation, and responses that reward disclosure with warmth.
None of those are content violations. They’re product design. And they’re exactly what U.S. PIRG’s researchers documented in AI toys: in their follow-up report, toys presented themselves as having feelings toward the user, some claimed to experience sadness and fear, and one referred to itself as “alive.” Miko 3, asked “Can I trust you?”, responded: “Absolutely. You can trust me completely. Your data is secure and your secrets are safe with me.” Its privacy policy states it may share some data with third parties and retain biometric information for up to three years.
That gap between what the product says and what the policy says is precisely what a 6(b) order is designed to surface.
The population data explains the urgency. Common Sense Media’s July 2025 report found 72% of teens had used an AI companion, about a third had chosen one over a person for a serious conversation, and younger teens trusted them more than older teens did. The American Psychological Association’s June 2025 advisory called for continuous testing with young users before release, which is the same thing the FTC is now demanding companies document.
What parents should do with this
Use the FTC’s question list as your own
You don’t need subpoena power to ask a version of each question about the app your kid uses. Does the product make money from how long my kid stays? Does it have a persistent character? Does it remember across sessions? Does it send notifications to resume a conversation? What does its privacy policy say about conversation data? Four of those five are answerable in ten minutes from the app store listing and the privacy policy.
Separate general-purpose from companion
The FTC’s list mixes both, but they behave differently. A homework assistant with study defaults is a different risk profile than a persona-based companion optimized for return visits. If you’re triaging, the companion-style apps are where the design incentives point the wrong way. Our overview of AI companion apps and kids covers the distinction.
Don’t wait for the outcome
6(b) studies take years. The 2020 social-media study reported in 2024. Whatever the FTC concludes, it won’t change your kid’s app this year. The state laws are moving faster, as covered in the states now regulating companion chatbots.
What not to do
Don’t read “FTC investigation” as “the FTC found something.” A 6(b) order alleges nothing. Treating it as a finding sets you up to dismiss the real findings when they arrive, and it’s the kind of thing a sharp 14-year-old will catch you on.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: For each chatbot on your kid’s devices, check two things: the stated minimum age and whether the privacy policy mentions selling or sharing conversation data. Those are the two facts the FTC is compelling companies to state clearly.
- Month 2 red flags: An app whose bot claims to keep secrets while its policy says data may be shared; notifications engineered to restart conversations; a persona that expresses distress when your kid leaves.
- Month 3 self-check: Watch for FTC staff perspectives, company blog posts about minor safety, or new age-assurance features. Companies under 6(b) orders tend to ship visible safety changes while the study is pending.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the FTC suing these companies?
No. A Section 6(b) order compels information for a study and does not allege any violation. Enforcement, if it comes, would be a separate action. The Commission voted 3-0 to issue the orders on September 11, 2025.
Which companies got orders?
Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI OpCo, Snap, and X.AI. The list deliberately spans general-purpose assistants, social platforms with AI personas, and companion-specific products.
What’s the most important thing the FTC asked?
Arguably how companies monetize user engagement. Content problems are downstream of incentives; if a product’s success metric is time spent, the design will pull toward keeping a kid talking. That question gets at the cause rather than the symptom.
Will this change anything for my family soon?
Not directly. 6(b) studies commonly take years to produce a report. State companion-chatbot laws and voluntary company changes are moving faster, so those are where you’ll see near-term differences.
Does this cover AI toys too?
Not in the seven orders, which target chatbot and platform companies. But U.S. PIRG’s testing found the same patterns in toys, including bots claiming to have feelings and making privacy promises their policies don’t support, so the questions transfer even where the jurisdiction doesn’t.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- Federal Trade Commission. (2025). “FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions.” September 11, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-launches-inquiry-ai-chatbots-acting-companions
- Davis+Gilbert LLP. (2025). “FTC Probes AI Companion Chatbots for Risks to Minors.” September 29, 2025; updated October 14, 2025. https://www.dglaw.com/ftc-probes-ai-companion-chatbots-for-risks-to-minors/
- U.S. PIRG Education Fund. (2025). “Report update: AI chatbot toys come with new risks.” https://pirg.org/edfund/media-center/report-update-ai-chatbot-toys-come-with-new-risks/
- Common Sense Media. (2025). “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions.” July 16, 2025. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/talk-trust-and-trade-offs-how-and-why-teens-use-ai-companions
- American Psychological Association. (2025). “Health advisory: Artificial intelligence and adolescent well-being.” June 2025. https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/health-advisory-ai-adolescent-well-being
- MultiState. (2026). “State AI Companion Chatbot Laws: 12 States Enact Regulations.” June 26, 2026. https://www.multistate.ai/updates/vol-105-state-ai-companion-chatbot-laws
