Character.AI uses a combination of automated software tools and human reviewers to filter content, and its AI models themselves are built with content restrictions.
This analysis describes what Character.AI's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision discloses that human reviewers have access to user content and AI-generated outputs, which is relevant to user privacy expectations and may engage data protection obligations depending on what data is reviewed and retained.
Interpretive note: The document does not specify what data categories are accessible to human reviewers or what data retention practices apply to reviewed content, leaving the full privacy scope uncertain.
Users should be aware that their content and interactions may be reviewed by both automated systems and human moderators, meaning conversations on the platform are not treated as private in the context of safety enforcement.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Automated Moderation and Human Review Disclosure and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Character.AI has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 10 platforms.
"These guidelines apply to all aspects of the Character.AI experience. Our systems filter illegal or harmful content through both automated moderation and human review, while our AI models are designed with filters and limits to prevent inappropriate outputs.— Excerpt from Character.AI's Character.ai Community Guidelines
REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The disclosure of human review of user content engages GDPR and CCPA privacy frameworks, particularly regarding the lawful basis for processing user conversation data and the disclosure of that processing in the platform's privacy policy. The use of automated decision-making in content moderation may also engage GDPR Article 22 regarding automated processing with significant effects, depending on how moderation outcomes are characterized. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The adequacy of privacy disclosures associated with human review of AI conversation content is a known area of regulatory scrutiny. If human reviewers access the substantive content of user conversations, data minimization and access control obligations under GDPR and CCPA are directly implicated. The document does not specify what data categories are accessible to human reviewers. JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU and UK users have heightened rights regarding automated processing and human review of personal data under GDPR and UK GDPR. California users have CCPA rights regarding the use of their data in moderation processes. If minor user conversations are reviewed by human moderators, COPPA obligations regarding data handling are additionally implicated. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: The reference to contracted moderators and vendors in the Safety Center pages (disclosed in the document's embedded content) creates vendor management and data processing agreement obligations under GDPR for EU-facing operations. Legal teams should verify that data processing agreements are in place with all moderation vendors. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should assess whether the privacy policy adequately discloses the scope and basis for human review of user content, and whether data retention practices for content flagged during moderation are documented. Consent and transparency obligations under applicable frameworks should be reviewed against current disclosure practices.
Full compliance analysis
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Free: track 1 platform + weekly digest. Watcher: 10 platforms + same-day alerts. No credit card required.
Professional Governance Intelligence
Need to monitor specific governance provisions?
Professional includes provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, regulatory mapping, and audit-ready analysis.
Built from archived source documents, structured governance mappings, and historical version tracking.
This provision discloses that human reviewers have access to user content and AI-generated outputs, which is relevant to user privacy expectations and may engage data protection obligations depending on what data is reviewed and retained.
Users should be aware that their content and interactions may be reviewed by both automated systems and human moderators, meaning conversations on the platform are not treated as private in the context of safety enforcement.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Character.AI.