Homewrecker 2.0: An Exploration of Liability for Heart Balm Torts Involving AI Humanoid Consorts

  • Sonya Ziaja
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7072)


With the development of artificially intelligent humanoid consorts, robotics is venturing into a realm of legal liability that has traditionally governed social interactions between humans and other humans, rather than interactions between humans and machines. How can and should legal systems deal with the problems that arise in regulated human interpersonal and sexual relationships when there is an AI sex doll in the mix? Heart balm torts, traditionally used to hold a third party paramour civilly liable for the dissolution of a protected relationship, provide a potential answer. Finding an appropriate entity to be liable will be problematic, though robot producers and the AI entity itself could both be potential defendants in a heart balm case. Producers may be able to limit liability if they can incorporate the experience of heartbreak and compassion into their creations.


Liability Social Robots Artificial Intelligence Sex Heart Balm Tort 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arkin, R.: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (2008),
  2. 2.
    Lee, Y.: Samsung Gets Creative. Bloomberg Markets Magazine (presenting Samsung’s machine-gun-equipped sentry robot) (August 31, 2010),
  3. 3.
    Aging Japan Building Robots To Look After Elderly, Terra Daily, March 15 (2006),
  4. 4.
    Levy, D.: Love and Sex with Robots. Harpers (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solum, L.B.: Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence. North Carolina Law Review 70 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asaro, P.: Robots and Responsibility from a Legal Perspective. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, April 14 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lovgren, S.: A Robot in Every Home by 2020, South Korea Says, National Geographic News, September 06 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Intelligent Asimo: Systems Overview and Integration. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 3, pp. 2478–2483 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzo, E.: Singapore Researchers Unveil Social Robot Olivia. IEEE spectrum, August 13 (2010),
  10. 10.
    Wada, et al.: Living With Seal Robots—Its Sociopsychological and Physiological Influences on the Elderly at a Care House. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23(5), 972–980Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharkley & Sharkley: Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, July 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sexrobot, I.: Harpers Magazine (March 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karlin, S.: Red-Hot Robots, Roxxxy and Rocky, the world’s first sex robots, are ready to leave the lab. IEEE Spectrum (June 2010),
  14. 14.
    Frequently Asked Questions, (last checked September 14, 2010),
  15. 15.
    Griggs, B.: Inventor unveils $7,000 talking sex robot, CNN (February 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hornyak, R.: Sex Robot Roxxxy Looking for Action, cnet news, January 11 (remarking on the doll’s ability to discuss Manchester United) (2010),
  17. 17.
    Chapman, G.: World’s first life-size robotic girlfriend, AFP, January 10 (2010),
  18. 18.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts, 684 (1977)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel, N.: Note, The State’s Perpetual Protection of Adultery: Examining Koester v. Pollard and Wisconsin’s Faded Adultery Torts. Wisc. L. Rev. 1013 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Page Keeton, W., et al.: Prosser and Keaton on the Law of Torts, 5th edn., vol. 920 (1984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kavanagh, Note: Alienation of Affections and Criminal Conversion: Unholy Marriage in Need of Annulment, 23 Ariz. L. Rev. 323, 324 (1981)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prosser and Keaton, The Law of Torts, 2nd edn., vol. 697 (1955)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heard, J.: Comment: The National Trend of Abolishing Actions for the Alienation of a Spouse’s Affection and Mississippi’s Refusal to Follow Suit, 28 Miss. C. L. Rev. 313, 316–319 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Corbett, W.R.: A Somewhat Modest Proposal to Prevent Adultery and Save Families: Two Old Torts Looking for a New Career, 33 Ariz. St. L.J. 985 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deans, S.M.: The Forgotten Side of the Battlefield in America’s War on Infidelity: A Call for the Revamping, Reviving, and Reworking of Criminal Conversation and Alienation of Affections, 53 How. L.J. 377 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nicolas, P.: The Lavender Letter: Applying the Law of Adultery to Same Sex Couples and Same Sex Conduct, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 97 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Magrierowski v. Buckley, 121 A.2d 749 (N.J. Super. 1956)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W.3d 231 (Supreme Court of Missouri 2003) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kross, et al.: Social Rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(15), 6270–6275 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Neil v. Schuckardt, 733 P.2d 693 (Idaho 1987)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moulin v. Monteleone, 115 So. 447, 456 (La. 1928)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Divorce Online Blog, June 1 (2011),
  33. 33.
    Bickmore, T.: Friendship and Intimacy in the Digital Age (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Melson, G.: Robotic Pets in Human Lives: Implications for the Human-Animal Bond and for Human Relationships with Personified Technologies. Journal of Social Issues 65(3), 545–567 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hackney Jr., J.R.: Forum: On the Intellectual History of Law and Economics: Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory. 15 Law & Hist. Rev. 275 (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Foster, N.H.D.: Company Law Theory in Comparative Perspective: England and France, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 573 (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gray, H.C.: The Nature and Sources of the Law (Roland Gray ed., MacMillan 1921) (1909)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Searle, J.: Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417–457 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Theories of Tort Law, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
  40. 40.
    Balantine’s Legal Dictionary, Copyright (c) 2010 LexisNexis Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Mul, J.: Transhumanisme - de convergentie van evolutie, humanisme en informatietechnologie. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 45(2), 159–176, available in English at
  42. 42.
    Nass, Moon: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues Spring (2000)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim, J.-H., et al.: The Origin of the Artificial Species: Humanoid RoborHanSaRam,Robot Intelligence Laboratory EECS Department, KAIST, Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701 Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonya Ziaja
    • 1
  1. 1.Oxford University, Wolfson CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations