On 18 September 2026 the Cyberspace Administration of China opened public consultation on the draft Provisions of the State Council on Safeguarding the Healthy and Safe Use of the Internet by Minors, with comments due by 17 October. The draft contains twenty-five articles, two of which concern artificial intelligence directly: Article 4 prohibits the provision to minors of virtual intimate relationship services such as virtual relatives and virtual partners; Article 5 lists “artificial intelligence services capable of affecting the cognition of minors” among the services that must be provided through a minors mode.
The consultation has closed and the final text has not yet been published. For AI companies the moment to take stock on the product side is now, rather than after the commencement date is fixed.
As to product impact, two categories must be separated immediately. Virtual intimate relationship services, such as virtual relatives and virtual partners, fall within the prohibited category and require an assessment of withdrawal or of closing the function to minors altogether; generative dialogue, AI companionship and AI learning tools fall within the diverted category and require a minors mode and the ability to identify users. The first determines whether the product survives; the second determines how it is presented.
The scope of application is broader than commonly assumed
Article 2 provides that these Provisions apply to the provision of internet services to minors within the territory, to the research, development and manufacture of smart terminal products, and to the provision of applications through application distribution platforms.
Three categories of subject follow: internet service providers, manufacturers of smart terminal products, and operators of application distribution platforms. Most AI companies fall within the first, hardware companies within the second, and application distributors within the third.
It should be noted that the text does not make “directed specifically at minors” a condition of application. Wherever a service may in fact be used by minors, it may fall within the scope. A statement that “our users are mainly corporate clients”, or that “registration requires a declaration of adulthood”, will usually not suffice as an exclusion; the decisive question remains actual use and product design.
Two provisions aimed at AI, of differing stringency
The consequences of the two provisions can be set out first in a table:
| Provision | Treatment | Services concerned | Age threshold | Direct impact on the product |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 4, item 2 | May not be provided at all | Virtual intimate relationship services such as virtual relatives and virtual partners | No age exception | Assess withdrawal, or close the function to minors entirely |
| Article 5, item 3 | Must be provided through a minors mode | AI services capable of affecting the cognition of minors | Users under sixteen | Build a minors mode, with identification, diversion and appeal mechanisms |
Article 4 lists the internet services that may not be provided to minors, and item 2 covers “virtual intimate relationship services such as virtual relatives and virtual partners”. That item admits no age exception. Item 1 of the same article creates an exception for online social services involving strangers, in that such services may be provided to minors over sixteen whose main source of livelihood is their own labour income; no equivalent outlet is provided for virtual intimate relationship services.
Article 5 adopts a diverted approach: where specified services are provided to minors under sixteen, they must be provided through a minors mode. Item 3 of that article covers “AI services capable of affecting the cognition of minors”, listed alongside online audio and video, online games and online social networking.
The difference between the two provisions determines the path for the product. What falls under Article 4 may not be provided at all; what falls under Article 5 must be switched to a minors mode. The first concerns whether the product may continue to exist; the second concerns how it is presented.
“Capable of affecting the cognition of minors” is not yet defined, and judgment must return to the form of the product. Generative dialogue, AI companionship, AI learning tools and content-generation products are relatively likely to fall within the item; tools such as code completion, translation and enterprise knowledge retrieval are less likely, though where they are open to individual users without any age distinction an assessment is still required. The draft empowers the national cyberspace administration, together with the relevant departments, to adjust the categories listed in Articles 4 and 5 as appropriate, so the boundary may continue to move.
Four preparations
First, a product inventory. Three questions must be answered: whether the service may be used by minors; whether the product contains a function or comparable interaction of the virtual relative or virtual partner kind; and which services must switch to a minors mode when provided to users under sixteen. The answers to the second and third determine the workload that follows.
Second, identification and diversion. Article 6 requires internet service providers to be able to identify minor users, and lists the means that may be used in combination: official identity documents, the national online identity authentication public service, distributed digital identity authentication public services, non-storage one-off facial verification, and behavioural feature recognition. Article 9 further provides that services listed in Article 4 may not be provided to users who have completed real-name verification or been identified as minors, and that services listed in Article 5 must be switched to a minors mode. The same article requires an appeal channel, so that measures may be lifted promptly for users verified as falling within the prescribed circumstances.
Identification capability and the appeal mechanism must be designed together. Identification without appeal leaves a user whose age information is wrong with no remedy, which is itself a compliance gap.
Third, algorithmic and ethical review. Article 8 requires sound systems for the review of algorithmic mechanisms, scientific and technological ethics review, information content management, and network and data security, and expressly prohibits algorithmic models that induce emotional dependence, addiction or excessive spending among minors.
This provision bears most directly on AI companionship products. Arrangements common in product design — consecutive-dialogue prompting, anthropomorphic persona settings, reinforcement of emotional feedback, paid unlocking of intimate storylines — all require reassessment as to whether they constitute inducement of emotional dependence. The conclusion of that assessment should be recorded in writing rather than left as an oral view expressed at a design review.
Fourth, filing and records. Article 12 establishes a filing mechanism for the minors mode: manufacturers of smart terminals and internet service providers that offer a minors mode must file the settings and functions with the provincial cyberspace administration; platform service providers with a very large number of minor users and a significant influence on minors must file with the national cyberspace administration through the provincial administration, submitting a report on the construction and use of the service. Filing materials are subject to annual verification.
Filing presupposes that the minors mode has actually been built; where the functions do not exist there is nothing to report. Article 10 further imposes on smart terminals and application distribution platforms requirements of linkage, one-touch switching, verification on exit and resistance to circumvention, so hardware companies must bring this work forward to the product definition stage.
Penalties and timing
Article 18 addresses breaches of Articles 4, 5, 6(1), 7(3), 9(1) and 11(1), providing that the cyberspace, press and publication, telecommunications, public security, culture and tourism, market regulation and radio and television departments shall, within their functions, order correction, issue a warning and confiscate unlawful gains; where unlawful gains exceed RMB 1 million, a fine of between one and ten times those gains shall also be imposed; where there are no unlawful gains or they are below RMB 1 million, a fine of between RMB 100,000 and RMB 1 million shall also be imposed; and the directly responsible persons in charge and other directly responsible persons shall be fined between RMB 10,000 and RMB 100,000. Where correction is refused or the circumstances are serious, the authority may order suspension of the relevant business, suspension for rectification, closure of the website or application, or revocation of the relevant business permit or business licence.
Article 20 addresses breaches of Article 10 and Article 12(2), providing for an order to correct and a warning, together with a fine of between RMB 100,000 and RMB 1 million and a fine on directly responsible persons of between RMB 10,000 and RMB 100,000.
The commencement date in Article 25 is left blank, in the form “effective from __ 2026”. Under the ordinary legislative process the final text is published within a few months of the close of consultation, and commencement may follow shortly afterwards. The preparation window is therefore measured in months, not years.
It should also be noted that these Provisions do not replace the existing regime. The Regulations on the Protection of Minors in Cyberspace and the Provisions on the Protection of Children’s Personal Information Online remain in force, and these Provisions add specific requirements on top of existing obligations. Existing rules on personal information processing and mechanisms for guardian consent are not displaced by the new rules.
A suggested timetable
Before the final text is published, three things can be done.
First, add the question “does this service reach minors?” to the product review checklist as a standing question before launch. It costs least and is most easily skipped.
Second, assess virtual intimate relationship functions separately. This is the only provision in the whole text that prohibits provision outright and admits no age exception; it bears on whether the product survives, and should rank above other matters.
Third, treat the minors mode as a set of functions rather than an interface switch. Identification, the content pool, management of time slots and duration, resistance to circumvention and appeal handling are all components, and the absence of any one may prevent the filing materials from passing verification.
Companies with virtual companion or emotional companionship products should also review their position against the Interim Measures for the Administration of Anthropomorphic AI Interaction Services; the two regimes overlap in scope and their obligations should be mapped together.
Related analysis on this site: Interim Measures for the Administration of Anthropomorphic AI Interaction Services, AI Issues in the Qinglang Campaign on the Online Environment for Minors, Checklist of Materials for Generative AI Filing and An Ethical Review Framework for AI Education Applications, together with the overview of AI Legal Services.
Related coverage: on 21 September 2026 the South China Morning Post published a report on the scope of “virtual intimate relationships” under the draft, in which He Qianggao commented on the boundaries of the provision. SCMP report
Last updated: 26 October 2026.