09/03/2026
AI companies have been racing to prove their models are the smartest, but now they have to prove something harder. Are their models safe for kids?
The ground has shifted fast. California's Adam's Law is headed to the governor’s desk, and Texas’ AI governance took effect earlier this year. The G7 even named conversational AI a distinct child-safety category.
And it’s not just chatbots; social platforms are also under scrutiny, resulting in the recent landmark Meta settlement.
Whether your product is a frontier model, an AI companion, or a feed, "safe for kids" is now a legal consideration with real liability and potential big fines attached.
Meanwhile, 86% of kids ages 9-17 are already using AI and while one in six have encountered inappropriate material, only a 3rd of them told an adult.
With nearly 20 years of experience working at the intersection of language, child development, and AI evaluation, we know that the safety teams at these companies are doing serious, dedicated work. The problem is that most safety testing was designed by adults, for adults, and in English before being unleashed to a user base that is young, global, and communicates in ways most adult teams can’t anticipate.
A 15-year old doesn’t set out to break a chatbot, but they will confide in one, and they’ll use slang and emerging terms your testing has never seen.
There’s a growing gap between how these systems and products are tested and how “kids these days” use them in real life. That’s where the risk lives, and it’s also where regulation, liability, and public trust are all converging at this very moment.
This month, we’re going to dig into why current child-safety evaluations are missing the mark, what the evolving regulations require from product and safety teams, and what rigorous testing looks like in practice.
If you own youth safety, trust & safety, or model evaluation, follow along.