Kindroid and Nomi set an 18-plus age floor in their own terms

The design

Kindroid, made by Beautifully Incorporated, and Nomi, made by Glimpse AI, both restrict their companion apps to adults in their own current terms. Kindroid's combined legal terms, as retrieved on 16 September 2026, state the services are “only for use by individuals who are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in their jurisdiction, whichever is greater,” and add that the company “reserve[s] the right to request proof of age at any time to verify that minors are not using our Service.” Nomi's terms of service, retrieved the same day, similarly require a user to be “18 YEARS OF AGE (OR OLDER)” and state that Nomi “requires users to provide their age” and “reserves the right to implement additional age-verification procedures at any time.”

What the evidence says

Both documents are the companies' own current policy text, not an independent audit of how age is actually checked. Neither describes a mandatory identity or age-verification step at signup; each instead reserves a right to add verification later or “at any time,” which as written implies no such check is a default part of registration. Kindroid frames the consequence of failing to provide proof as possible account suspension; Nomi frames it as suspending or terminating an account “we suspect or learn is being used by someone under the age of 18,” a standard built on suspicion rather than confirmation.

What it asks of people

Both terms ask a user to self-attest their age by agreeing to the contract, with no stated check at the point of signup in either document. A user willing to misstate their age faces no described technical barrier in either policy as written; the obligation these terms create runs toward the user's honesty, not toward a verification system the company operates by default.

Privacy and safeguards

Nomi's terms add that the company does “not target children” and believes its platform does not endanger anyone, language that frames the 18-plus floor as a precaution rather than a response to a documented risk; Kindroid's terms state the age floor plainly without that framing. Neither document says what “proof of age” would consist of, how it would be verified, or how long any submitted proof would be retained, leaving those questions unanswered by the primary sources available here.

• What actually happens if a user declines to provide proof of age when asked?
• Do either company's mobile app store listings apply a stricter age gate than the web terms describe?
• How would a company using suspicion-based review, as Nomi describes, actually detect an underage account?

An 18-plus clause in a terms-of-service document states a rule, not a mechanism; both companies' own text leaves verification for “any time” rather than the moment a new account is created.