Engaging in infidelity might not always involve a third party, as emerging definitions of cheating suggest, notably in the realm of prenuptial agreements. Julia Rodgers, the CEO of Hello Prenups, revealed to Business Insider that some clients are asking for prenuptial contracts that broaden the conventional scope of infidelity to encompass interactions with artificial intelligence (AI). While specific examples from clients were not disclosed, an illustrative clause reflects trends in actual agreements, stating:
"knowingly and intentionally interacting with an artificial intelligence (“AI”) chatbot, virtual assistant, or similar AI-driven entity with the primary objective of developing or sustaining a romantic or sexual bond. This includes but is not limited to sharing sexually explicit messages or images, engaging in sexual roleplay or cybersex, expressing romantic feelings or exclusivity, or preserving an ongoing intimate relationship that a reasonable person would interpret as romantic or sexual."
As loneliness rates soar and AI companion applications like Replika and EVA AI gain popularity, more individuals are seeking emotional, romantic, and even sexual fulfillment from chatbots, some of whom are already involved in human relationships.
Legal experts specializing in prenuptial agreements are starting to receive inquiries about how to include these AI interactions in contracts. While many haven't personally crafted clauses addressing AI-infidelity, several view the growing concern as an extension of a trend where couples are redefining what constitutes cheating beyond physical encounters.
The evolving interpretation of infidelity points to a new frontier for couples before they commit to marriage.
Investigating 'AI Infidelity'
Hello Prenup manages an impressive volume of prenups annually, with about one-third incorporating infidelity clauses. Nonetheless, how courts will enforce AI-infidelity clauses remains unclear. Rodgers emphasized that "physical infidelity is relatively straightforward to define, but emotional virtual infidelity through a chatbot is much more challenging."
A recent study from Indiana University's Kinsey Institute highlighted that nearly 61% of single adults consider sexting or falling for an AI chatbot to be a form of cheating.
Lisa Zeiderman, a New York family lawyer, noted that this issue often arises within her clientele. Clients express frustration when their partners appear to prioritize AI companions over human relationships with family members.
Traditionally focused on asset management, prenups are now increasingly seen as agreements that set expectations for marital roles, according to attorney Aaron Thomas of Prenups.com, who likened them to partnership agreements in business.
Enforceability of infidelity clauses can become complicated even in absence of AI-related definitions, but demand for these clauses is on the rise as couples continue to expand what they view as infidelity.
For instance, a Kentucky appeals court recently upheld a prenup that specified cheating as "any form of contact with any female" outside of work, including various types of communication and even interactions during gaming.
Couples are increasingly attempting to define emotional infidelity within their agreements, and human-AI relationships are likely the next logical progression, according to Thomas. He anticipates AI-infidelity clauses will first surface in postnuptial agreements, which often tackle issues already threatening marriages.
Challenges in Enforcing AI Infidelity Clauses
California attorney Elizabeth Yang mentioned that her firm has received requests to incorporate AI-infidelity clauses into prenups but has advised against it due to potential issues with enforceability and the possibility of litigation down the road.
Drafting a clause addressing AI infidelity will require precise language, as highlighted by attorneys. A viable provision needs to include three essential elements: a clear definition of prohibited behavior, a means of determining if a breach has occurred, and specified financial implications. As Thomas stated, “a behavioral guardrail with a financial backstop.”
Possible definitions could revolve around spending thresholds on AI companions or time allocations spent in interactions with a chatbot. The agreement would also need to address evidence for breaches and the consequences, like adjusted alimony or asset redistribution.
The sample provision Rodgers revealed stipulated that if both parties agreed that one had committed infidelity, a specific financial penalty would be incurred. Moreover, it included language ensuring that even if the AI infidelity portion was unenforceable, the remainder of the prenup would still hold.
Also noting that a study found 61% of single participants considered interactions with AI as cheating, Zeiderman mentioned that AI-related cheating could potentially be managed under wasteful dissipation provisions, which restricts marital finances spent on outsiders, including romantic partners. Attorneys can use financial records to recover some of those expenses for the marital estate, suggesting a similar framework could apply to funds spent on an AI companion.
"The AI companion charge represents a new line item on credit card statements," observed Libby Leffler, CEO of First, reflecting a trend where expenses on such digital relationships arise periodically, previously marked by different platforms and spending habits over the years.
While measuring financial outlay might seem straightforward, quantifying the emotional toll of an AI affair poses challenges. "A person could find a cheap chatbot yet spend extensive hours engaged with it, which would present significant issues for a partner wanting to curb that behavior," Thomas noted.
Establishing Boundaries Regarding AI
Prenup attorneys discuss the advantages of crafting these documents with partners, emphasizing that the process often delves beyond the ultimate agreement. With AI companions still relatively new, couples may lack clarity on their mutual expectations regarding boundaries in a marriage. They may agree that AI-generated content is acceptable, while flirting with an AI companion crosses the line.
Most prenups don’t reach litigation, as one of their primary purposes is to prevent drawn-out legal disputes. Couples typically agree to terms that their attorneys then use to finalize divorce arrangements without the intervention of a judge.
In many respects, these prenuptial agreements serve as a means of setting clear expectations throughout the marriage, fostering alignment before either party initiates discussions with a new digital companion.
If you have experiences or insights related to AI infidelity, reach out to the reporter at [email protected].
