On September 30, 2026, Fairplay asked the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to investigate whether Meta and OpenAI were deliberately using AI-agent mascots to attract children. The request puts a friendly design choice alongside a harder question: how people judge software that can act on their behalf.
What Fairplay asked regulators to examine
Fairplay executive director Josh Golin asked regulators to investigate whether the companies were deliberately trying to draw children to AI agents. That is the concern behind the advocacy group’s request.
Muse and Dots give AI agents a character
Meta’s Muse is associated with Jolly, a fuzzy, customizable mascot. OpenAI’s Dots takes a more optional approach: users can name and personalize their primary dot, but they can start without choosing a character or name. NeoTeo has previously covered Muse and Jolly.
What research says about character design and trust
Anthropomorphism means giving a nonhuman system human-like traits or presentation. A friendly character may make an unfamiliar tool feel more approachable, but that possible effect is not a measured result for Jolly or Dots. Research on anthropomorphic cues and trust has produced mixed, context-dependent findings. A mascot can shape first impressions; it does not tell you whether an agent will do a task reliably.
The controls OpenAI describes for Dots
OpenAI says Dots can use connected apps and its own cloud computer. Access to a user’s computer is separate unless the user chooses to connect it. Users can manage app permissions, set rules that allow or block actions or require approval, review activity and redirect work.
OpenAI also warns that Dots can make mistakes and says consequential work should be reviewed.
