Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly being used as “personal therapists.” From chatbots offering mental health advice to AI platforms designed to simulate talk therapy, people are turning to technology to fill gaps in access to traditional care. These tools can feel supportive, inexpensive, and available around the clock. But while the convenience is attractive, the legal landscape is murky. Questions about licensing, liability, data privacy, and consumer protection all surface when AI is used in place of, or even alongside, human mental health professionals.
What Is AI Therapy?
AI therapy refers to the use of artificial intelligence tools to provide therapeutic interactions, emotional support, or mental health guidance. Apps like Woebot, Wysa, and Replika, for example, use natural language processing to converse with users, guide them through cognitive-behavioral techniques, or simply offer empathetic responses. Importantly, these platforms are not typically licensed to practice medicine or psychology. Instead, they are marketed as wellness tools. That distinction carries significant legal consequences.
Licensing and the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine
One of the most immediate concerns is whether AI tools cross the line into the unauthorized practice of medicine or psychology. In the United States, only licensed professionals can provide medical or psychological treatment. If an AI app offers something that looks like therapy, for example, diagnosing depression or suggesting treatment, it may be operating in a legal gray area.
So far, regulators have largely allowed wellness-oriented apps to operate so long as they avoid claiming to be substitutes for licensed therapy. However, this does not mean the risk is gone. States regulate health care differently, and if an AI tool is marketed or used in ways that resemble professional treatment, companies could face enforcement actions.
Liability for Harm
Another legal question is who is responsible if a user relies on an AI therapist and is harmed. Imagine a scenario where an AI chatbot fails to recognize suicidal ideation or provides dangerously inaccurate advice. Traditional malpractice law holds licensed professionals accountable, but AI platforms complicate this framework.
If the AI is provided by a company, product liability theories may apply. Further, courts could potentially treat harmful advice as a “defective product” or “negligent service.” Contract law could also come into play because while most AI apps include disclaimers that they are not substitutes for therapy, these disclaimers do not always prevent lawsuits, especially if consumers reasonably rely on the app’s advice.
Data Privacy and Confidentiality
Confidentiality is one of the cornerstones of therapy. Licensed professionals are bound by strict rules, including HIPAA in the United States, to protect patient information. AI therapy platforms, by contrast, may not fall under HIPAA unless they partner with a covered entity such as a health plan or provider.
This creates significant risks for users. Conversations with an AI “therapist” may be stored, analyzed, or even sold for advertising purposes. In 2023, several mental health apps faced FTC scrutiny for sharing sensitive user data with third parties despite promising confidentiality. Without clear legal safeguards, users’ most personal disclosures may be vulnerable.
Consumer Protection and Deceptive Practices
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorney Generals also play a role in regulating AI therapy platforms. If an app claims to offer clinically validated therapy but fails to deliver, it could face enforcement for deceptive advertising. Similarly, overstating the effectiveness of an AI tool could trigger consumer protection lawsuits.
The issue of informed consent also arises. Users may not fully understand that an AI system cannot replicate the judgment of a trained clinician. If companies fail to disclose limitations clearly, they risk liability for misleading consumers.
International Considerations
Globally, governments are beginning to regulate AI in health contexts. The European Union’s proposed AI Act classifies health-related AI systems as “high-risk,” meaning they will face stricter requirements for safety, transparency, and oversight. Countries like Australia and Canada are also exploring frameworks to regulate digital mental health tools. Companies operating internationally must be mindful that compliance in one jurisdiction does not guarantee compliance elsewhere.
Practical Guidance
For companies developing or deploying AI therapy tools, the safest path is to frame products as wellness or self-care aids rather than licensed therapy. Clear disclaimers, transparent privacy policies, and strong data protections are essential. Companies should also build systems to detect red-flag scenarios, such as self-harm, and redirect users to emergency services.
For consumers, the key is understanding what these tools are and what they are not. AI can be a supportive supplement, but it should not replace professional care, especially for serious mental health conditions. Users should read privacy policies carefully and assume that information shared with an AI app may not be protected the way a therapy session would be.
Conclusion
AI has the potential to make mental health support more accessible, but the legal consequences of using AI as a personal therapist remain unsettled. Licensing rules, liability frameworks, and privacy protections are being tested in real time. Until regulators provide clearer guidance, both companies and users should approach AI therapy with caution. The technology may offer valuable support, but it cannot yet provide the safety net of professional accountability that comes with human therapists.
If your business is developing or deploying AI in the mental health space, or if you are concerned about the legal risks of using AI-driven tools in your practice, it is critical to seek experienced legal counsel. Romano Law can help you navigate compliance requirements, draft protective contracts, and assess liability exposure so that innovation does not come at the expense of legal risk.
Contributions to this blog by Kennedy McKinney.