Biomimetic robots frequently engage in borderline behavior, and legal gaps urgently need to be filled: how to divide the responsibilities of consumers and manufacturers?
Lead
Recently, the biomimetic robot market has seen a surge in popularity, with its lively large eyes and aesthetically pleasing appearance attracting many consumers to make purchases. However, some consumers, after bringing the robots home, engage in "borderline" behaviors that have sparked widespread public debate. This phenomenon is not only a matter of moral ethics but also touches upon legal boundaries. As lawyers, we must analyze the core issues involved, such as the protection of personality rights, product safety, and public order and good morals, based on the current legal system. This will help clarify responsibilities for consumers and manufacturers and provide legal guidance for the healthy development of the industry.
The Legal Status of Bionic Robots: Objects or Persons?
Bionic robots are legally classified as "objects" rather than "persons," a distinction clearly reflected in China's Civil Code. According to Article 2 of the Civil Code, civil law regulates personal and property relationships among natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations as equal subjects, and robots do not possess civil subject qualification. Therefore, any actions taken by consumers toward robots do not constitute infringement against a "person," but may cross other legal boundaries.
However, the highly human-like appearance of biomimetic robots, especially their feminine features, gives rise to particular legal controversies. For instance, if a robot's appearance imitates a specific real person (such as a celebrity), it may infringe upon the right to portrait. According to Article 1019 of the Civil Code, no organization or individual may defame, defile, or use information technology to forge or otherwise infringe upon another person's right to portrait. Without permission, one may not produce, use, or publicly display the portrait of the right holder. If a manufacturer produces highly similar robots without authorization, and consumers purchase them for "borderline" conduct, the manufacturer may face lawsuits for portrait rights infringement, while consumers may bear joint liability for the infringement.
Additionally, the "gendered" design of robots is not inherently illegal, but if their appearance or functions are used for pornographic purposes, it may violate the provisions of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law regarding "producing, transporting, duplicating, selling, or renting obscene materials." Lawyers remind consumers that when purchasing and using bionic robots, they should clearly understand their status as "objects" to avoid breaking the law through improper behavior.
Legal Risks of Consumers' "Edge-Crossing" Behavior: Public Order and Good Morals, and Public Security Management
Although consumers engaging in "borderline" behaviors with bionic robots, such as sexual innuendo or inappropriate contact, does not constitute infringement against the robot, it may violate the principle of public order and good morals. According to Article 8 of the Civil Code, civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate the law or contravene public order and good morals. Although this provision primarily governs civil conduct, if consumers display or use robots for inappropriate behavior in public places, it may be deemed contrary to public order and good morals, potentially resulting in administrative penalties.
Specifically, if "borderline" behavior occurs in the public sphere, it may violate Article 44 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, which stipulates that acts of indecency against others, or intentionally exposing one's body in public places under aggravated circumstances, are subject to detention of five to ten days. Although a robot is not considered "another person," if the behavior is deemed "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" or "disturbing public order," detention and fines may be imposed under Article 26. Lawyers have noted that similar cases exist in practice, such as consumers bringing biomimetic robots into public places and engaging in inappropriate conduct, resulting in police warnings for "disturbing public order."
Additionally, if consumers record and disseminate videos of "borderline" behavior, it may constitute the dissemination of obscene materials. Under Article 363 of the Criminal Law, those who produce, reproduce, publish, sell, or disseminate obscene materials for profit shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also be fined. Even without the intent to profit, the dissemination of obscene materials under serious circumstances may also lead to criminal liability under Article 364. Lawyers advise that consumers should avoid using robots for improper purposes, especially in public spaces and cyberspace, to avoid legal sanctions.
Manufacturer's Legal Liability: Product Safety and Content Review
Manufacturers bear product safety liability in the design and production of bionic robots. Under Article 46 of the Product Quality Law, a product defect refers to an unreasonable risk that endangers personal safety or the safety of others' property. If a robot causes consumer injury due to design or manufacturing defects—such as mechanical failure or hazardous materials—the manufacturer must bear tort liability. Additionally, Article 18 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that business operators shall ensure that the goods they provide meet the requirements for safeguarding personal and property safety. If a robot's appearance or functionality induces consumers to engage in dangerous behavior, the manufacturer may be held liable for failing to fulfill its duty to warn.
More critically, manufacturers must review the built-in content of robots. If a robot has AI interaction capabilities and can output inappropriate remarks or sexually suggestive content, the manufacturer may violate the Cybersecurity Law and the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services. These measures require providers of generative AI services to uphold socialist core values and prohibit the generation of illegal information. If a manufacturer fails to implement content filtering mechanisms, allowing the robot to induce borderline behavior, it may face administrative penalties. Lawyers advise that manufacturers should establish a comprehensive content review system and clearly specify usage guidelines in product manuals to mitigate legal risks.
Additionally, manufacturers must be mindful of the legal boundaries in advertising. If promotional materials use selling points such as "sexy" or "touchable," they may violate Article 9 of the Advertising Law, which prohibits advertisements from containing obscene, pornographic, gambling, superstitious, terrifying, or violent content. Once deemed non-compliant, manufacturers could face fines ranging from three to five times the advertising costs. Lawyers advise that manufacturers should exercise caution in marketing, avoiding positioning bionic robots as "sexual playthings" and instead emphasizing their technological value and application scenarios.
Industry standards and legal refinement: the call of lawyers
Currently, the biomimetic robotics industry lacks unified legal regulations, resulting in unclear rights and responsibilities for both consumers and manufacturers. Lawyers are calling for legislative bodies to introduce specialized regulations as soon as possible, clarifying the legal status, usage boundaries, and liability for infringement of biomimetic robots. For example, reference could be made to Japan's "Robot Ethics Charter" and the European Union's proposal for "Civil Law Rules on Robotics" to establish a tiered and categorized management system. At the same time, industry associations should develop self-regulatory conventions to standardize product design and marketing, preventing "borderline" promotional practices.
For consumers, lawyers advise reading the product manual carefully before purchasing to understand the robot's functional limitations; when using it, they should abide by public order and good customs, and avoid spreading inappropriate behavior in public places or online; if harmed due to a robot defect, they may demand a return, exchange, or compensation in accordance with the Consumer Rights Protection Law. For manufacturers, lawyers recommend strengthening compliance reviews, regularly updating the content library to ensure AI interactions comply with laws and regulations; at the same time, establishing a user complaint mechanism to promptly address improper usage.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on the intersection of technology and law, offering legal services such as product compliance review and intellectual property protection for bionic robot manufacturers, as well as rights protection consultation for consumers. We believe that through legal refinement and industry self-regulation, bionic robot technology will better serve society rather than spark controversy.
Conclusion: Balancing Law and Technology
The "edge-seeking" chaos in bionic robots reflects the legal lag in technological development. Consumers need to clearly define behavioral boundaries, manufacturers must shoulder social responsibility, and legislators need to accelerate institutional supply. Only through collaboration among all parties can technology truly benefit humanity. As guardians of the law, lawyers will continue to monitor this field, provide professional support to clients, and promote the healthy development of the industry within the framework of the rule of law.
