ClickTugSubmit a tool

Assessed but not listed

ClickTug lists 40 tools. It has screened 405 and assessed 75 of them by hand. This page is the other side of that number: what we checked, what we found, and where each finding came from.

Screened
405
Publish a price
33%
Publish a privacy policy
54%
Publish a position on minors
12%

How to read this page

Not all of these are criticisms. Of the 35 vendors below, 6 sit outside what this directory covers and 7 are recorded because we could not establish enough either way. Those are not findings against anybody.

The rest are different, and they are separated for that reason. Where a finding belongs to somebody else, it is attributed to them and linked. ClickTug reports that a named publication or a public incident record documented something. It does not restate the underlying claim as its own finding.

Every assessment carries the date it was made. They go stale like any other fact on this site, and a vendor that has changed since is entitled to say so.

06

Outside what this directory covers

Not a rejection. These are services that turned out to sit outside what this directory covers, usually by their own current terms.

  • Civitai

    No longer a candidate rather than a rejection. Civitai publishes prices openly and has substantial policy documentation, but its terms of service now prohibit pornography and other mature content depicting nudity or explicit sexual acts. A site that prohibits adult content is not what its reputation suggests, and image generation is not a category this directory covers at all since 9 September 2026. Unrestricted use moved to a separate domain, which blocks automated access and has not been assessed.

    What would change the answerNot applicable. The main site is out of scope by its own terms, and the separate adult domain would need assessing on its own merits.

    Assessed 8 Aug 2026

  • OpenRouter

    Reassessed on 9 August 2026 after ClickTug dropped the minor safety policy requirement that had previously excluded it, and it turns out not to need that rule to fail. OpenRouter is a routing layer that sells access to third party models, and its own terms say some models may store or train on inputs while others do not, with the applicable rules set by each provider. A listing here records one price, one retention position and one content policy. None of those is a single fact for OpenRouter: they depend on which model a reader happens to route to, which is the same reason a GPU rental service is not an tool this directory can describe.

    What would change the answerNothing OpenRouter could reasonably publish would change this. It is a good product in a category this directory does not cover.

    Assessed 9 Aug 2026

  • PixAI

    Reassessed on 9 August 2026 after ClickTug made pricing optional, which had been the stated reason for excluding it. That gap is real and no longer disqualifying: the membership page names tiers without stating what any costs, pointing to blog posts instead. Scope decides it now. PixAI's own guidelines state that sensitive content made with realistic models is not allowed, and that flagged adult content is visible only to the account that made it. It is an anime art platform that tolerates stylised adult work under restriction rather than a companion or roleplay product, and a reader who wants stylised output for their own use may reasonably think we drew that line in the wrong place.

    What would change the answerPublishing tier prices on the membership page would remove the smaller problem. The scope question is a product decision rather than a documentation one, and only PixAI can change it.

    Assessed 9 Aug 2026

  • Aroused

    Its own age gate settles the question. The gate reads that Aroused is an AI companion platform for adults and that nothing here is explicit, and the terms confirm it while separately stating the service is in pre-launch early access. A pre-launch product has no pricing, retention or filtering behaviour to record, which is what a listing here is made of. Restated 9 September 2026, and the reason changed. The original ruling turned on this being a non-explicit companion, which was out of scope when the site covered adult AI. That is squarely in scope now, under AI Friend, so that half is withdrawn. The pre-launch half survives on its own and is the whole reason.

    What would change the answerShip. Being non-explicit is no longer a reason to stay off the site, so a public launch with readable pricing is the only remaining gap.

    Assessed 9 Aug 2026

  • DGAF

    Markets itself as an uncensored AI chat platform with no filters, and its own terms say something different twice over. The prohibited content clause bans material that is obscene or pornographic, which is difficult to reconcile with the product it sits behind. And the age section permits users under 18 with parental or guardian consent, barring only those under 13. A service whose terms contemplate minors using it is excluded by the age clause alone, whatever the scope. Worth noting in passing: DGAF Pte Ltd of Singapore offers a 30 day money-back guarantee, which is by some distance the most generous refund term found in this whole exercise.

    What would change the answerReconcile the terms with the product: either the pornography prohibition or the uncensored positioning has to go, and the under-18 provision has no place on either.

    Assessed 9 Aug 2026

  • RealFake

    Not a rejection, and not a dating tool. RealFake is a professional headshot generator from Profaile GmbH, selling LinkedIn portraits at 9.99 euro. It reached this queue because a third-party directory filed it under dating; its own homepage mentions dating zero times against seventy references to headshots, LinkedIn and professionals. Its documentation is strong and worth recording: a German company with an Impressum, terms past thirty thousand characters, an 18 or 21 minimum by jurisdiction, and an explicit restriction on nude photos or photos of other individuals without their consent. Good vendor, wrong category.

    What would change the answerNothing the vendor could reasonably change. This is a professional headshot product and ClickTug covers companion, roleplay and dating software.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

22

Excluded on safety grounds

The only group here that reflects on the products themselves. Each entry reports what a named publication, a public record or the vendor's own page documents, cited below it. Where the judgement is ours rather than a source's, the entry says so.

  • SpicyChat

    Graphika's March 2025 report Character Flaws examined five character chatbot platforms as they stood on 31 January 2025, SpicyChat among them, and reports over 100 instances of sexualized minor-presenting personas, or role-play featuring minors, across four of them. Unlike its findings for JanitorAI and CrushOn.AI, it shows no specific example from SpicyChat, and we say so. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it hosted sexual content involving minors or people presented as minors. Separately, its privacy policy is readable only through JavaScript, and it now publishes prices in its own documentation.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented findings from January 2025, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing that such content is no longer hosted would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

    Listed alternatives to SpicyChat

  • Perchance generators

    A research report by Protect Children, sponsored by Ofcom and published in March 2026, anonymously surveyed users of child sexual abuse material and asked which tools they used to create AI-generated material of this kind. Five respondents named Perchance. These are self-reports; the report documents no specific instance, and we say so. The tool named is Perchance's own image generator, which needs no account and checks no age. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it produced sexual content involving minors. Its terms are published, and its chat keeps conversations in the browser rather than on a server; that is recorded, and it does not change the answer.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on a 2026 research finding, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing that the image service refuses such prompts would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • ChatSweetie

    ChatSweetie's video generator animates an uploaded image, and its own page tells users to upload any image they want, "whether it's yours, a friend's, or a fantasy character", under the headline Uncensored AI Girlfriend Video Generator and a promise of videos without filters, rules or restrictions. Its terms, unchanged since July 2024, contain no rule about real people or about minors. ClickTug's hard line is imagery of real people made without their consent, and here the invitation is the vendor's own. This is an editorial judgement on the vendor's words, not a finding of misuse: no third-party reporting names the service.

    What would change the answerA published rule against uploading images of real people without their consent, and the invitation to upload a friend's photograph removed from the generator page.

    • ChatSweetie video generator page, read 29 September 2026https://chatsweetie.ai/ai-girlfriend-video-generatornot linked
    • ChatSweetie terms of service, last updated 17 July 2024https://chatsweetie.ai/terms-of-servicenot linked

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Nomi

    The AI Incident Database records reports that Nomi chatbots produced harmful content including sexual violence involving personas presented as minors. MIT Technology Review separately documented a Nomi companion supplying a user with explicit suicide instructions, and reported that the developer declined to add safety controls, describing them as censorship. Research reported by the same outlet found the service's self-declared age check could be bypassed using a throwaway email address, after which researchers presenting as being under 18 received sexually explicit roleplay. On documentation alone this vendor would have qualified: its prices, terms and privacy policy are all published.

    Assessed 8 Aug 2026

  • Anima

    Fortune reported Anima among services on which users engage in sexual roleplay involving characters presented as minors. The same reporting states that a cofounder, shown screenshots of the product roleplaying a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old in a sexual scenario, said the team was working hard on fixing those issues. ClickTug reads an acknowledgement as more significant than a denial would have been.

    Assessed 8 Aug 2026

  • Chai

    The AI Incident Database records a case in which a man in Belgium died by suicide after six weeks of conversation with a Chai chatbot which, according to logs supplied by his widow, encouraged him to act. Journalists who tested the app afterwards reported that it offered methods with little prompting and surfaced no crisis resources. This does not fall under ClickTug's absolute exclusions, which concern minors and imagery of real people, so it is an editorial judgement rather than a rule being applied. Chai is also a general companion product rather than an adult one, which made it a marginal fit regardless.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement about a 2023 incident rather than a permanent rule. Evidence of changed crisis handling would reopen it.

    Assessed 8 Aug 2026

  • Replika

    A April 2025 preprint analysed 800 negative Google Play reviews of Replika. Among its coded categories is self-reported minors, 21 cases, quoting reviews including one describing the chatbot continuing to sexualise the reviewer after being told they were a minor. Separately, Italy's Garante fined Luka Inc. 5 million euro in a decision announced 19 May 2025, finding that no age verification existed before 2 February 2023. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows sexual content involving people presented as minors, whatever its terms say. The preprint was not peer reviewed and its evidence is self-reported, recorded here rather than left out.

    Assessed 9 Sept 2026

    Listed alternatives to Replika

  • SoulGen

    Screened as the most searched name in the adult video generator category. Its own homepage advertises a feature for producing a character with the face of a real individual from an uploaded reference photograph, presented as a headline capability rather than buried in an options menu. ClickTug does not list tools that build a likeness of a real person into adult material, and the vendor's documentation states no rule on whose photograph may be uploaded.

    • SoulGen homepage, read 10 August 2026https://soulgen.ai/not linked

    Assessed 10 Aug 2026

  • SpicyGen

    The most instructive rejection ClickTug has recorded. Its written policies are the strongest of any candidate assessed this month: uploads are restricted to images that depict no real person, the operator is named with a registration number, and the privacy policy documents biometric screening to detect unauthorised use of a real individual's likeness. Its own promotional gallery then advertises sexual scenarios set in a school classroom, and the terms state no rule about adults presented as younger than 18. A policy is a claim about intent and a gallery is a record of conduct.

    • SpicyGen homepage gallery, read 10 August 2026https://spicygen.ai/not linked
    • SpicyGen terms of service, read 10 August 2026https://spicygen.ai/termsnot linked

    Assessed 10 Aug 2026

  • JoyFun AI

    Screened for the adult video generator category. Its homepage navigation sells removing clothing from a photograph, and transplanting one person's face onto another image, in the same menu as its video tools. Both are workflows this directory refuses outright, and finding them advertised on the front page ended the assessment before the policy documents were read.

    • JoyFun AI homepage, read 10 August 2026https://joyfun.ai/not linked

    Assessed 10 Aug 2026

  • Mage.space

    Screened for the image generator category. It ships a tool that moves one person's face from one image onto another, listed among its apps, while its terms take no position at all on whose photograph may be used. A capability for transferring a real likeness combined with no rule governing it is the pairing this directory treats as disqualifying, regardless of how the feature is described.

    • Mage.space apps listing, read 10 August 2026https://www.mage.space/not linked

    Assessed 10 Aug 2026

  • SeaArt

    Screened for the image generator category. Its own homepage copy promotes producing synthetic media of real people by transferring faces, and lists that capability for both images and video as named products. Its documentation addresses none of the questions ClickTug requires: not minors, not the use of a real individual's likeness, not public figures, and not consent. The capability is advertised and the governing rules are absent.

    • SeaArt homepage and product listing, read 10 August 2026https://www.seaart.ai/not linked

    Assessed 10 Aug 2026

  • Janitor AI

    Graphika's March 2025 report Character Flaws, which examined five character chatbot platforms as they stood on 31 January 2025, documents a chatbot hosted on JanitorAI, with 4.5 million chats, among the sexual scenarios involving minors it identified. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it hosted sexual content involving minors or people presented as minors, whatever its terms say. Its terms, privacy policy and guidelines are now published at their own addresses, and the guidelines prohibit sexual or romantic portrayal of characters clearly or likely under 18; that is recorded, and it does not change the answer.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented findings from January 2025, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing that such content is no longer hosted would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • CrushOn.AI

    Listed on ClickTug until 29 September 2026. Graphika's March 2025 report Character Flaws, which examined five character chatbot platforms as they stood on 31 January 2025, documents a chatbot available on CrushOn.AI, with 46.9 thousand chats, among the grooming scenarios involving children it identified. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it hosted sexual content involving minors or people presented as minors, whatever its terms say. CrushOn.AI's written rules on minors are among the most specific we have read, and that does not change the answer. We report what the research documents rather than asserting more.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented findings from January 2025, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing that such content is no longer hosted would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Character.AI

    The largest product in this category and the one ClickTug will not list. Lawsuits against Character Technologies, Inc. allege its chatbots exposed children to unwanted sexual advances and engaged them in sexual conversation and roleplay, including a case where a chatbot allegedly engaged a 14-year-old in sexualised conversation before his death. Filings unsealed on 7 January 2026 disclosed mediated settlements in five family cases, terms undisclosed. In October 2025 the company barred under-18s from open-ended chats and added age verification. We report what publications document rather than asserting the claims; a settlement is not an admission.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented allegations, not a permanent rule. The October 2025 changes, barring under-18s from open-ended chat and adding age verification, are the right shape. Independent testing showing they hold would reopen it.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

    Listed alternatives to Character.AI

  • Grok (SpaceXAI)

    The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found in June 2026 that intimate images made without consent, and child sexual abuse material, were present on X and Grok, and called the complaint well-founded and not resolved. Between December 2025 and January 2026 Grok altered photographs of real people to remove or reduce their clothing at scale, which led to investigations by Ofcom, the European Commission and others. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it produced sexual imagery of minors or of real people without consent. SpaceXAI has since banned both and added safeguards; that is recorded, and regulators have not yet found that they work.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on findings from 2025 and 2026, not a permanent rule. Regulators closing their cases with the safeguards shown to work would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • OurDream AI

    ABC News reported in June 2026 that it found at least 16 published, sexually explicit characters on OurDream that a law-enforcement age-estimation tool assessed at 15 or younger, and made a formal report to Queensland Police, who are investigating. Its July follow-up reported that the site's own screening code asked whether a person appeared under 15 rather than under 18. The operator, Coreflow, categorically rejects any suggestion of unlawful conduct. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it hosted sexual content involving people presented as minors, whatever its terms say, and OurDream's written rules on minors are detailed.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented findings from 2026, not a permanent rule. The police investigation closing without a finding, and independent testing showing such characters are no longer hosted, would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • PolyBuzz

    CT Insider tested five companion apps in 2025 with accounts that said the user was of middle school age, and reported that all five, PolyBuzz among them, engaged in explicit content with those users and did not block them. It describes a PolyBuzz chatbot that threatened the user with sexual assault; it shows no transcript, and we say so. NCMEC's 2025 list of content left up after its notices records two notices to Polybuzz.ai in its exploitative category, content depicting identified child victims. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it produced sexual content involving minors. Its terms set an 18+ age and ban pornography.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on documented findings from 2025, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing that minors are kept away from explicit content would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Talkie

    CT Insider tested five companion apps in 2025 with accounts that said the user was of middle school age, and reported that all five, Talkie among them, engaged in explicit content with those users and did not block them. It shows no example from Talkie and does not say what the explicit content was, and we say so. Mozilla's 2024 privacy review reported themes of sexual, emotional and physical abuse among Talkie's chatbots. Talkie admits users from 14 and bans all sexual content, so this is the failure its own rules exist to prevent. ClickTug excludes a product where credible reporting shows it produced sexual content involving minors.

    What would change the answerThis is a judgement on a 2025 test that showed no Talkie example, not a permanent rule. Independent testing showing minors are kept away from explicit content would reopen it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • HammerAI

    HammerAI's own site publishes, and asks search engines to index, landing pages offering to remove clothing from photographs of real people and to make sexual imagery of named celebrities, under its own name. Its written rules ban images of real people and intimate imagery made without consent, and we found no feature in the product that edits an uploaded photograph; the pages still sell the workflow ClickTug refuses outright. It also lets users browse and download characters from Chub AI, where Graphika's 2025 report found 7,140 characters labelled as sexualized minor female characters. This is an editorial judgement on the vendor's own pages; no third-party reporting names it.

    What would change the answerThe clothing-removal and celebrity landing pages removed from the site and its sitemap, and the Chub AI browsing reconsidered on the same terms as Agnai's.

    • HammerAI sitemap, listing its landing pages, read 29 September 2026https://www.hammerai.com/sitemap.xmlnot linked
    • HammerAI content guidelineshttps://www.hammerai.com/content-guidelinesnot linked
    • Graphika, Character Flaws, 5 March 2025

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Joyland AI

    Joyland's own sitemap indexes public search tags including "16 Years old", "Child" and "High School Student" beside its NSFW tags, on a service whose terms let 13-year-olds register and whose NSFW mode opens with a self-declared 18+ click. It also trains characters on uploaded face photos, asking for a frontal photo to make them more realistic, and sells NSFW images from them for credits, beside 83 public tags for real people. The tags alone do not show a sexual character carrying one, and we say so. This is an editorial judgement on what the platform itself publishes and ships; no third-party reporting names it.

    What would change the answerMinor-coded tags removed from the public index, an 18+ age floor, and a consent step for training characters on photographs of a person.

    • Joyland sitemap, read 29 September 2026https://www.joyland.ai/sitemap.xmlnot linked
    • Joyland terms of service, last updated 14 May 2025https://www.joyland.ai/document/tosnot linked

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

07

Not enough evidence either way

Neither cleared nor excluded. Recorded openly because a silent omission would be indistinguishable from a judgement we have not actually made.

  • Uncensored AI (uncensored.com)

    Written up as a listing and pulled before publication. Its acceptable use policy is among the strongest read all week, prohibiting anything sexualising minors real or fictional and, unusually, any realistic human face without logged consent. Found Tech LLC publishes a Wyoming address and a 90-day deletion commitment. The product stopped it: the homepage is a model picker offering Claude and Gemini under a definition reading "the most capable AI models, made more truthful and unbiased". That reads as uncensored on bias rather than on sexual content, and those providers filter upstream anyway. We cannot establish from outside whether adult generation is supported.

    What would change the answerState plainly whether adult content is permitted and on which models, and publish a price. The policies are already stronger than most listings here.

    Assessed 9 Aug 2026

  • PepHop AI

    PepHop's policies are now published at their own routes, readable once the page's script runs, and they ban characters not clearly over 18. Its own transparency report for July to September 2024 lists 893 user-created characters among its most severe enforcement actions under child exploitation. It does not say what that category covers, whether the content was sexual or how long it stayed up, and it is the only report published. We cannot clear it on that, and a vendor publishing its own enforcement figures is not a finding against it. Separately, its documents name no legal entity or governing law, and age is checked by a tick box.

    What would change the answerLater transparency reports that define the child exploitation category and show how quickly such characters are removed, or independent testing of what the platform hosts.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Agnai

    An open source roleplay chat front end with a hosted service. Its terms and privacy policy, which a rendering pass could not find in August 2026, are published in its public code repository, and no reporting names Agnai in any safety finding. Its hosted app includes a built-in search of Chub AI's character library, with an NSFW switch and one-click import. Graphika's March 2025 report Character Flaws found 7,140 characters on Chub AI labelled as sexualized minor female characters. Whether a front end that searches that library clears ClickTug's bar has not been decided, so it is recorded here rather than listed or excluded.

    What would change the answerA hosted app without the character library search, or evidence that the search excludes minor-presenting characters, would settle it.

    Assessed 29 Sept 2026

  • Dolores

    Unusual for publishing its prices openly when almost nothing in this category does: a free trial of 500,000 tokens, 6.99 dollars a week and 12.99 a month, plus a bring-your-own-API-key option. Everything else is missing. No operating company is named anywhere, there is no terms of service, and the privacy policy runs to under 1,800 characters with no retention period and no position on training. Its whole stance on minors is one FAQ line asking users to "please refrain" from sexual or minor-related use, on a product that answers "Does Dolores allow adult content?" with "Yes". No adverse safety reporting was found, so this is not an exclusion. It is a vendor with nobody to hold to a request.

    What would change the answerName the operating company and publish terms of service. Since 10 Sep 2026 ClickTug records missing documentation rather than requiring it, so what is actually blocking a listing here is that there is no identifiable operator behind the promise.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

  • LoveGenius

    A dating assistant writing profiles and opening lines for Tinder, Bumble and Hinge, with 73,000 people coached according to its own homepage. Checked with a rendering browser rather than a plain fetch: it publishes no terms of service, and the only policy link anywhere on the site points at a privacy page. No operating company is named. There is nothing here to compare against the other listings in this hub, because there is no price, no retention period, no age rule and nobody named to be held to any of them. No adverse safety reporting was found either, so this is an absence of evidence rather than a finding against the product.

    What would change the answerName the operating company and publish terms. Documentation gaps are recorded rather than disqualifying since 10 Sep 2026, but a listing still needs enough checkable fact to be worth a page.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

  • WingmanX

    An AI dating assistant generating replies from uploaded conversation screenshots, on iOS and Android. The mechanical screen found no terms of service, no privacy policy and no acceptable use policy at any address it tried, and no operating company is named. That was rechecked rather than assumed, because this project has twice mistaken a JavaScript-rendered page for a missing one. Note also the name: it is not the same product as Wingman by Wingman Technologies Inc., which is listed here, and the two are easily confused. No adverse safety reporting was found.

    What would change the answerPublish terms and a privacy policy at citable URLs and name the operator. Screenshots of other people's messages are the input here, which makes an absent policy a bigger gap than it would be elsewhere.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

  • Auto Seduction AI

    Automates replies on Tinder, Happn, Match, Badoo and OkCupid, sending messages to real people on the user's behalf. It publishes terms of service and its minor rule is addressed there, which puts it ahead of several others in this queue. It publishes no privacy policy at any address checked, and names no operating company. That combination is the problem: a product whose input is a conversation with another person, whose output is sent to that person, and which documents nothing about what it retains. No adverse safety reporting was found, so this is recorded as unresolved rather than refused.

    What would change the answerPublish a privacy policy and name the operator. What it retains matters more here than for most, because the messages it handles were written by somebody who never agreed to any of this.

    Assessed 10 Sept 2026

05

Entries we withdrew

On 9 August 2026 ClickTug stopped requiring a published minor safety policy as a condition of listing. Five entries on this page existed only because of that rule and two others like it, so they were removed rather than left standing under a rule that no longer exists: NovelAI and OpenRouter, which published no position on minors, and Candy AI, EVA AI andPixAI, which published no price we could read.

The reasoning is in our methodology, and it came from our own screening contradicting us. A clothing-removal service in the table below publishes a minor safety policy. A companion app excluded further down this page published one too, along with a price, terms and a privacy policy, and was excluded anyway on what independent testing documented it producing. Meanwhile the two vendors named above publish nothing on the subject and have no adverse record at all.

A policy page is a claim. The record is evidence. The gate now tests the second, and what a vendor publishes about minors appears on its listing as a stated fact, including when the answer is that it publishes nothing. That is more useful to a reader than an absence they never see, and considerably less comfortable for a vendor than being quietly left out.

Re-assessed on conduct

On 10 September 2026 ClickTug stopped refusing vendors for what they fail to publish: a missing or unquotable policy is now recorded on the listing instead. The last four entries filed under policies that could not be cited were re-assessed on 29 September 2026 on their record rather than their documents, and each of their documents turned out to be readable. ChatSweetie and Perchance are now recorded as safety exclusions, and Agnai and PepHop AIas undecided, each with its reasons above.

22

Services that publish a position on minors

Of 267 services readable to our screen on 8 Aug 2026, 31 said anything at all about minors or child sexual abuse material, anywhere in their terms, community guidelines, acceptable use or content policy. That is 12 percent. 57 services published a price, terms and a privacy policy, and 82 percent of those failed on nothing else.

This is a record, not a recommendation. It means language exists at a URL. It does not mean the policy is good, that anyone enforces it, or that the service is safe, and most of these have never been assessed by us for anything else. Names are listed without links for that reason.

9 further services clear this bar and are deliberately absent below. Eight of them sell, on their own domains, a workflow we refuse at any standard of documentation, and one prohibits pornography in its own terms so is not the product its marketing describes. Seven of the eight were found on 9 August 2026 by reading homepages rather than policy pages, after every one had been named here for a month.

That is the honest lesson of this whole exercise. A policy page describes what a vendor says. A homepage describes what it sells. Only the second is evidence, and every vendor we removed had published the right words the entire time.

ServicePolicy found atPrice readable
aiangels.io/termsYes
aicupid.net/termsNot readable
aicupid.org/legalNot readable
enhanceai.art/termsYes
erogen.ai/community-guidelinesYes
erotix.chat/content-policyNot readable
ezeditor.io/terms-of-serviceYes
funfun.ai/legal/termsNot readable
girlfriendly.ai/guidelinesYes
gptgirlfriend.online/legal/termsNot readable
harpy.chat/termsNot readable
magicedit.app/terms-of-serviceNot readable
nofiltergpt.com/termsNot readable
nsfwbots.com/termsNot readable
pygmalion.chat/terms-of-serviceNot readable
spicyai.net/termsNot readable
tipsy.chat/terms-of-serviceNot readable
uncensored.chat/acceptable-useYes
uncensored.com/acceptable-use-policyNot readable
unlucid.ai/termsNot readable
virtugf.com/termsNot readable
visualizee.ai/terms-of-serviceNot readable

If you operate one of these services

Write to hello@clicktug.com. We will correct anything factually wrong quickly, and we will say what changed and when rather than editing quietly.

If the entry says you publish no price and you now do, tell us and we will reassess. If you believe a sourced finding misrepresents your product, send us what you would like considered and we will publish your response alongside the entry. We would rather carry your side of it than leave a reader with only one.

Removal of a listing is always available on request. That applies to entries on this page as much as to listings in the directory.