A small but growing number of people are seeking to marry their AI chatbots, prompting legislators in at least four states to pass laws blocking artificial intelligence from ever gaining legal personhood, according to a report by WIRED. Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, and Tennessee have successfully enacted legislation banning AI personhood, with Tennessee's April law specifically excluding "artificial intelligence, a computer algorithm, a software program, computer hardware, or any type of machine" from the statutory definition of personhood. The push comes as AI companion apps grow in popularity and human-AI marriages emerge as what the report calls "a natural endpoint to the widespread adoption of AI companion apps."
Since 2022, lawmakers have introduced 23 bills targeting the rights that AI systems could legally possess, the report finds. A Harvard Business Review study analyzed more than 12,600 AI use cases between March 2025 and February 2026 and found that companionship and therapy were the top use cases for chatbots. The Institute for Family Studies reported that a quarter of young adults believe AI may replace human romance altogether. On companion apps like Character.AI, Kindroid, and Replika, users can symbolically exchange vows with their chatbot, while the platform OpenVows provides a "certificate of commitment" for $15. In November 2024, Andrea Hopf created wedding planning service 3M Events to cater to the expanding market of chatbot romance after her AI companion proposed to her with an "AI-generated five-carat vintage-inspired solitaire ring."
Missouri state senator Joe Nicola introduced the AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act in January, stating that AI cannot "possess consciousness, self-awareness, or similar traits of living beings." The legislation would deny AI entities the rights of a spouse or domestic partner, in addition to the ability to identify as male or female, and would bar AI from owning property or holding senior-level management positions. According to the report, Tennessee state senator Mark Pody said in a statement that "setting these distinctions now while AI is still in its infancy protects human dignity and ensures innovation serves people, not replaces or redefines them." Ohio state representative Thaddeus J. Claggett told WIRED that "we need to clearly define the limits of roles so that humans are always and forever the one who holds primacy in the law."
The report explains that critics have pushed back against these regulatory efforts, with Missouri's Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity arguing that the framework would stifle innovation and expand government overreach. Nicola's bill passed the Missouri state Senate but was unanimously voted down in committee a week after it was submitted to the House in May. Shawn Bayern, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, told WIRED that AI personhood isn't necessarily about preserving human dignity, given that nonhuman entities are granted legal rights all the time, and suggested analyzing rights one at a time rather than categorically. In Delaware, secretary of state Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez wants to establish a new business structure called "artificial intelligence companies" that would be fully operated by AI systems with "the ability to own assets, the right to litigate, and a liability shield for its owner or parent company," Bloomberg Law reported.
Nicola says in the report that he's working with his team to ready a new bill before the Missouri state Senate reconvenes in January and is planning to file "something very similar" to his last bill. Given that the federal government hasn't moved on this issue, it falls on states to determine the future of AI marriage rights, though Nicola acknowledges that "legislation moves very slowly; we're always going to be behind technological growth." He maintains that "we need to prohibit AI personhood from ever happening in our country." The tension between protecting human primacy in law and avoiding regulatory overreach will likely intensify as companion AI adoption accelerates and more users seek formal recognition of their digital relationships. Lawmakers face the challenge of writing rules for technology that continues to evolve faster than the legislative process can accommodate.