The FTC's companion chatbot inquiry is a study, not a case

The design

On 11 September 2025 the Federal Trade Commission issued what it calls 6(b) orders, a legal tool the agency uses to compel information for a study rather than a case, to seven companies that operate consumer-facing AI chatbots: Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta Platforms, OpenAI, Snap and X.AI. The underlying resolution directing the compulsory process targets companies offering generative AI companion products, which the release describes as chatbots built to simulate human-like communication and interpersonal relationships. The Commission voted 3-0 to issue the orders, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson framed the goal as understanding how firms build and safeguard these products, not finding fault with any one of them.

What the evidence says

The FTC's own release states the orders seek information on how each company monetises engagement, processes user inputs to generate outputs, develops and approves chatbot characters, measures and monitors for negative effects before and after launch, mitigates harm to children, discloses risks to users and parents, enforces age restrictions and terms of service, and uses data drawn from chatbot conversations. That list is itself evidence of what the agency does not yet know: it is asking companies to supply their own safety-testing and monetisation practices because the FTC has not independently verified them. A 6(b) order compels a special report; it does not require a company to admit any practice was unlawful, and the release names no violation by any recipient.

What it asks of people

For users, the inquiry asks nothing directly, since no chatbot user is a party to it. What it asks of the seven companies is disclosure: internal data on engagement design, safety testing and data handling that has not previously been public. Whether that data becomes public depends on how the FTC chooses to use it, which the release does not state. A parent reading the release should not expect a ruling or a settlement to follow automatically; a study under 6(b) authority produces a report, and separately, if evidence warrants it, may support a later enforcement referral.

Privacy and safeguards

The release explicitly ties the inquiry to children's and teens' privacy and safety, and references the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule as an existing compliance obligation companies must already meet. But the orders themselves are not an enforcement action, and the release does not commit the FTC to publishing company-level findings or timelines. Readers should treat this record as an open information-gathering step, not a verdict on any named company's practices.

• Has the company behind a companion product been named in this 6(b) study, and does it say so anywhere in its own materials?
• Does the FTC's eventual report, if published, name specific safety or monetisation practices rather than describing the industry in aggregate?
• What would change for a user if this study becomes the basis of a later enforcement action rather than a public report alone?

The distinction between a study and a case is not a technicality. It determines whether anything found becomes public, whether any company faces a penalty, and how long a reader should expect to wait for either.