In May 2025, Italy’s data-protection authority imposed a €5 million fine on Replika, an AI companion developer. The reasons were straightforward: no solid legal basis for processing personal data and weak age-verification. What looked like a niche enforcement soon became a warning to the whole industry.
Romantic chatbots are no longer treated as toys. They generate streams of deeply personal conversations, and regulators now see these streams as high-risk data environments.
The backdrop explains why the issue matters. According to Pew Research, 16% of Americans report feeling lonely “always or most of the time,” and another 38% say “sometimes.” That emotional gap is precisely where AI-girlfriend app reviews find their relevance, because these apps are marketed as support, comfort, or even love.
But the uncomfortable question remains: could your most personal chat become an analytic asset or evidence in a courtroom? Before signing up, it’s worth knowing how these systems work.
To act like “your person,” a chatbot has to know you. And so these apps collect more than most users realize.
Mozilla’s audit of one popular companion app showed that it recorded not just basic details — age, birthday, and payment information — but everything you send:
● photos
● videos
● voice messages
● chat transcripts
● potentially sensitive topics, including health and religion
The same review warned that behavioral data were “definitely” shared and possibly sold to advertisers, while security standards failed to reach Mozilla’s minimum threshold.
Another platform, where romantic roleplay is only one feature, lists a similar scope:
all user-generated content, tracking data, voice if enabled, ad partners, analytics, and model-training use.
For affluent or public users, the risk isn’t just targeted ads. It’s the combination of:
● intimate content
● device identifiers
● payment history
● potential legal requests
Suddenly, Europe’s regulatory pressure looks less like an exception and more like the emerging default.
Researchers studying “artificial intimacy” tend to return to a single principle:
trust exists only when users don’t fear consequences.
MIT’s Sherry Turkle puts it bluntly:
“There’s no intimacy without privacy.”
Right now, the industry has nothing like doctor–patient confidentiality for AI chat. Sam Altman has voiced the same concern: the law can compel companies to cooperate with subpoenas.
Companies counter with reassurance:
● encrypted in transit
● conversations are private
● models aren’t trained on user chats
● subscription revenue means “data aren’t for sale”
Yet regulators tell a different story. In Italy’s case, authorities highlighted weak legal grounds and insufficient age verification, noting that even after updates, the safeguards still didn’t meet requirements.
The demand didn’t come from nowhere. Many people are lonely not because they lack social skills, but because emotional attention has become scarce. In that context, an AI companion offers something simple:
● no judgement
● no social risk
● constant availability
Even entrepreneurs in the space describe their products as a bridge, not a replacement. One CEO told a story of a divorced user who regained confidence through daily conversations with a bot — which eventually helped him reconnect with real people.
But that bridge can turn into a trap without boundaries.
Treat an AI companion like a financial service. Check:
● data retention and deletion
● third-party sharing
● ad-tracking
● transparency on training
● response to legal requests
And keep one rule:
don’t write anything you wouldn’t want leaked or presented in court.
If that boundary holds, an AI companion can deliver something meaningful — not fantasy, but practice. Small daily rituals, emotional rehearsal, and a sense of being heard. Sometimes, that’s enough to help someone step back into real human connection.
