Only 6 of 31 AI companion apps say where they operate

25 of 31 do not publish a jurisdiction

Only 6 platforms (19%) state which country their operating company is registered in: Secrets AI, Candy AI, Swipey AI, DreamGF, Nomi AI, CrushOn AI. The other 25 name a trading entity and stop there. That matters because your consumer rights, your refund entitlement and the regulator you could complain to are all decided by that one fact, and it is the one fact most of this industry omits.

29 of 31 charge twice

94% run a second currency on top of the subscription, billed separately for images, video or voice. We counted 8 different names for it across 29 platforms, including Moments, Tokens, Credits, PeepCoins, Coins. Only 2 platforms include everything in the subscription price: Nomi AI and CrushOn AI. The advertised monthly price is therefore not comparable between platforms, which is the point of it.

Advertised entry prices span 10x

The cheapest advertised entry point is $3.99 a month and the dearest is $39.99, usually on annual billing. Once the second currency is counted, the ranking of cheapest to dearest changes substantially, which is why we record both.

12 forget everything when the chat ends

19 platforms build memory that persists between sessions. 12 remember only the current conversation, so the companion resets each time you come back. This is the single largest functional difference in the category and it is almost never stated on a pricing page.

Why this became a practical problem in January 2026

California's SB 243, in force since 1 January 2026, is the first law written specifically for companion chatbots. It requires operators to disclose that the companion is artificially generated, to give break reminders during long sessions, and from 1 July 2027 to report annually. It is enforced through a private right of action: an affected user sues, and the damages are the greater of actual loss or $1,000 per violation plus costs.

A private right of action is only worth what you can exercise. It requires knowing who the operator is and where to serve them, and on 25 of the 31 platforms we checked, the second half of that is not published anywhere on the site. The right exists on paper for users of every one of them and is practically much harder to use against the 25 than against the 6. That gap is the finding, and it is not one the industry is likely to close voluntarily.

We could independently verify 3

For 3 platforms we confirmed the published claims against shipped code, API responses or company registers. For the remaining 28 we are repeating what the operator states, and we label it that way on every page rather than presenting marketing as fact.

Jurisdiction was taken from each platform's own terms of service, imprint or company register filing, checked on 2026-08-22. Where a platform names a company without a country, we counted that as not published, because a company name alone does not tell you which law applies. Pricing is the lowest advertised entry point. Memory architecture is as described by the operator.

The full dataset is available as CSV under a CC BY 4.0 licence. If you use it, a link back to this page is all we ask. The scoring method behind the wider benchmark is published at how we test.

Corrections are welcome and we make them. If you operate one of these platforms and your jurisdiction is published somewhere we missed, tell us via contact and we will update the table and note the date.