We are doing this to maintain maximum legal compliance, and because we recognize the risks a platform with powerful memory can pose when the product becomes emotionally sticky, especially in moments of vulnerability or crisis.
Standard policy violations lead to content blocks only. Strictly illegal content can lead to an account ban or subscription cancellation. At the same time, this moderation system is designed to be privacy-preserving: for enforcement, we do not review blocked message bodies. What we see are heuristic violations and their values. For the product-facing explanation, see our Safety page.
We are not adding moderation rails because we think users are unserious. We are adding them because memory can compound risk, because companion chat is now a live legislative target, and because we would rather warn or hard-block than quietly alter model behavior once we know something sensitive is happening.
We want just4o.chat to be legible to users, parents, regulators, and courts. If someone asks whether we understood the risks of a memory-rich chatbot and whether we acted on them, the answer should be yes.
That is why we draw hard lines around crisis escalation, unsafe requests, and repeated policy violations. It is also why we show users the heuristic scores that tripped a block, store the signal instead of the blocked message, and avoid building a conditional router or moderation-specific system-prompt layer that tries to subtly redirect the interaction after the fact. Our choice is a warning and hard block, not a hidden behavioral rewrite. For clarity: standard policy violations lead to content blocks only. Account bans are reserved for strictly illegal content.
A system that remembers you is not just a text box anymore. Persistent memory makes a chatbot feel more personal, more convincing, and more emotionally sticky. That can be wonderful for continuity, but it also means failures can accumulate instead of evaporating.
State and international lawmakers are actively writing the rules for this category right now. Crisis protocols, disclosure of non-human status, vulnerability protections, and intervention duties are not theoretical anymore; they are becoming statutory expectations.
One path in this industry is to quietly change prompts or behavior when a system thinks it knows something sensitive about the user. We do not want to walk into the murky road of: we changed the system prompt when we knew X, and then Y happened. Our choice is simpler and more legible. We warn or hard-block instead of silently steering the model.
The system is designed to be easy to explain after the fact. There is no hidden moderation router, no quiet prompt rewrite, and no private review queue of blocked user messages.
Safety Mode is optional. When it is off, our moderation is intentionally very unrestrictive by mainstream-chat standards: the normal hard-block paths are focused on minors and self-harm. But it is not nothing. We still keep a silent, high-confidence backstop for some non-illegal adult-risk categories, so default mode is loose rather than lawless.
Note: content involving minors in sexual contexts is treated much more strictly than the standard flow. It has far less leeway and can lead to a permanent account lock. Standard policy violations lead to content blocks only, while strictly illegal content can lead to an account ban.
When Safety Mode is on, the same moderation thresholds apply much more broadly to create a more restricted, Safe experience. That mode is meant for people who want the product to stay inside tighter boundaries across a wider range of categories.
If a message, prompt, or upload trips the moderation heuristics, we stop it and show the category and numeric values that caused the block. We do not silently rewrite the interaction.
For the standard policy paths, each blocked violation adds a point in its category cycle. At 5 points, the account goes into a timed lock across chat, files, and images.
The standard timed-lock ladder is 1 hour, then 6 hours, then 12 hours, then 24 hours. After that, later lock triggers repeat at 24 hours instead of escalating into a permanent lock.
For enforcement, we do not review blocked message bodies. Admin tooling shows only the triggered heuristic categories, their values, and the enforcement state that followed from them.
Status snapshot as of March 12, 2026. These are selected examples, not an exhaustive 50-state survey. Status labels are based on official bill pages, official PDFs, or official calendars and histories available on that date.
| State | Bill or law | Status | Primary focus | Official link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | SB 243 | Enacted | Companion-chatbot disclosure, crisis safeguards, and protection for vulnerable users | CA SB243 |
| California | AB 3211 | Did not pass | AI provenance, watermarking, and disclosure requirements | CA AB3211 |
| Colorado | SB24-205 | Enacted; key duties phase in from February 1, 2026 | Risk management, disclosure, and discrimination protections for high-risk AI | CO SB24-205 |
| Connecticut | SB 86 | Referred to Joint Committee on General Law | Responsible use of AI systems and state-level oversight proposals | CT SB86 |
| Georgia | SB 540 | Passed Senate; moving in House | Conversational-AI safety, disclosure duties, and crisis-related protocols | GA SB540 |
| Hawaii | HB 1782 | Introduced | Protection for vulnerable users, manipulative-design concerns, and crisis prevention | HI HB1782 |
| Iowa | HF 2715 | Introduced | Chatbot deployer requirements, user safeguards, and disclosure rules | IA HF2715 |
| Kansas | HB 2671 | Introduced; referred to committee | Age gating, parental consent, suicide-prevention monitoring, and AI disclosure | KS HB2671 |
| New Jersey | S 3668 | Introduced | Disclosure that users are engaging with AI and related notice obligations | NJ S3668 |
| New York | A 6767 | Active; on floor calendar | Crisis protocols, disclosure, self-harm detection, and companion-model safeguards | NY A6767 |
| Oklahoma | SB 1521 | Active; reported do pass as amended | Limits on certain AI chatbots, age verification, and user-data protections | OK SB1521 |
| Oregon | SB 1546 | Active in 2026 regular session | Crisis referral, suicide prevention, and companion-chatbot duties | OR SB1546 |
| South Carolina | S 896 | Introduced; in Senate committee | Chatbot regulation, disclosure, and civil remedies | SC S896 |
| Utah | SB 149 (2024) | Enacted | Generative-AI disclosure and obligations in regulated or high-risk contexts | UT SB149 |
| Utah | HB 438 | Active in 2026 session | Companion-chatbot safety protocols and independent evaluation requirements | UT HB438 |
| Washington | SB 5984 | Active in 2025-26 session | Self-harm detection, consumer protection, and platform safety duties | WA SB5984 |
Not every item below is chatbot-specific. Some are broader AI or platform-duty laws that still matter because memory-heavy conversational systems sit inside the same risk envelope: manipulation, disclosure, recommender opacity, and systemic safety.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Status | Primary focus | Official link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) | In force; obligations phase in over time | Prohibited AI practices, transparency, general-purpose AI duties, and safety governance | EU AI Act |
| European Union | Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) | Fully applicable | Platform accountability, risk mitigation, transparency, and protections affecting recommender systems | EU DSA |
| Council of Europe | Framework Convention on AI | Opened for signature | Human rights, democracy, and rule-of-law obligations for AI systems | CoE AI Convention |
| United Kingdom | Online Safety Act 2023 | In force in stages | Illegal-content duties, child-safety duties, and platform accountability | UK Online Safety Act |
| Australia | Online Safety Act 2021 | In force | Platform duties, harmful-content intervention, and the legal base for safety expectations | AU Online Safety Act |
| Australia | Basic Online Safety Expectations Determination 2022 | In force | Provider expectations around systemic harms, user protection, and safety-by-design | AU BOSE Determination |
| China | Interim Measures for Generative AI Services | In force since August 15, 2023 | Provider responsibilities, security review, lawful content, and user protection rules | CN Generative AI Measures |
| Republic of Korea | Framework Act on AI Development and Trust | Enacted; effective January 22, 2026 | National AI governance, trustworthiness, and obligations for high-impact AI | KR AI Basic Act |
We are doing this because a memory-rich chatbot can become unusually intimate, unusually persuasive, and unusually hard to evaluate from the outside. That is now a real legal category, not just a product-design thought experiment. We want the product to be strong enough to use and clear enough to defend.
