Another indie companion app that scored poorly on minor safeguards is the XOMI AI Safety Index entry.
For the full breakdown of Foxy Chat AI’s corporate structure, age-gating contradictions, and data-training language, read the Foxy Chat AI review.
Pathway
Start with the romantic-app review lane, then pressure-test your shortlist against safety and best-picks coverage.
Pathway
Use this path when you want lower-pressure companionship and broad assistant-style support.
Pathway
Browse apps that position themselves closer to emotional support, then read the safety guidance alongside them.
Pathway
Open the roleplay lane, then cross-check moderation and safety posture before committing.
Pathway
Use this shortcut when you want the freshest reporting across reviews, ratings, and comparisons.
Pathway
Start with the strongest current ratings, then open the broader picks pages if you want a curated shortlist.
Latest Review
Xiaoice Review 2026
Our latest coverage of Xiaoice Review 2026, with safety scores and pricing.
Pathway
Start with the matchups visitors search for most, then branch into reviews or safety data for the final call.
Pathway
Head-to-head matchups focused on romantic and dating-style AI companions.
Pathway
Compare companion apps focused on friendship, support, and everyday conversation.
Pathway
Use this lane when privacy and safety posture matter more than features.
Pathway
Open the full comparison directory to browse every head-to-head matchup we have published.
Latest Comparison
Janitor AI vs Character AI
Safety, features, and pricing compared side by side.
Pathway
Use the live head-term best-of section first, then move into romantic reviews and safety checks for the final call.
Pathway
Start with the live head-term best-of section, then compare the strongest options before you subscribe.
Pathway
This is the broadest picks lane for people still deciding what kind of companion they want.
Pathway
Use the best-of hub for replacement and switcher pathways when one app is no longer the right fit.
Pathway
Start here if device compatibility matters more than niche use case right now.
Pathway
Use this path when price sensitivity is the main decision driver.
Trending
Best AI Companion App
Our latest coverage of Best AI Companion App, with safety scores and pricing.
Pathway
Use this lane when you need context, policy, and practical safety guidance before choosing an app.
Pathway
Start here if your main question is age-appropriateness, safety, or family risk.
Pathway
Use this path when your questions are more practical: cost, privacy, deletion, and data use.
Pathway
Use this lane when the central question is emotional attachment, dependency, or psychological risk.
Pathway
Use the FAQ lane when you need a fast answer before digging into longer guidance.
Popular Guide
Is My AI Companion Safe?
A plain-language guide to the privacy, data, and emotional risks of AI companion apps.
Pathway
Our canonical reference: 50 apps reviewed across 23 safety dimensions. 78% failed safety review and zero earned a Green tier.
Pathway
Start with the strongest current safety posture, then drop into reviews for deeper trade-off analysis.
Pathway
Use this path for mixed-tradeoff apps that need a closer look before you decide.
Pathway
Use this path when you want to understand the biggest risk flags before choosing or recommending an app.
Pathway
Start here when you want the freshest rescoring and methodology-linked updates.
Pathway
Open the methodology track when you want to understand how the Safety Index is built.
Recently Rated
Alora AI Safety Rating
Our latest coverage of Alora AI Safety Rating, with safety scores and pricing.
Foxy Chat AI earned an F (20/100) on the CompanionWise Safety Index, our lowest grade. The score is anchored by an automatic-F override: the app discloses no crisis-response system. Foxy’s own safety page at foxychat.ai/insights/ai-chatbot-safety lists “user-side moderation” and “adaptive filtering” but mentions no suicide-prevention hotlines, no crisis-keyword detection, and no human escalation path. For an 18+ app marketing emotional intimacy and roleplay, that absence is the safety story.
Three other findings drive the rest of the failing grade. First, the age-floor contradiction: Foxy’s Terms of Service set the minimum age at 13 globally and 16 in the EEA and UK, while the iOS App Store rates the app 18+ with sexual content marked “Frequent.” Age verification is self-declaration only. The company confirms this on its own marketing page: “Foxy Chat does not require ID verification. Users simply self-declare their age when creating an account.” That conflicts directly with the App Store listing, which advertises “Age Assurance: In-App Controls.”
Second, the AI training contradiction. Section 3 of the Foxy privacy policy says the company may “train and improve AI models in anonymized and aggregated form,” and Section 4 lists AI model training among purposes for sharing user data with vendors. A separate marketing post at foxychat.ai/insights/ai-chatbot-anonymity tells readers the opposite: “Foxy does not use private chats for model training.” Both statements are public. Both cannot be true.
Third, the corporate identity is unusually layered. The iOS App Store lists the seller as Real Deal Ventures Pte. Ltd. (Singapore). The copyright notice points to Mirai Labs (UK) Ltd. (Companies House No. 16583240). UK Companies House also lists Foxy AI Chat Ltd. as a third related entity. No leadership team or “About Us” page is publicly disclosed on foxychat.ai. For users who want to file a GDPR data-subject request or escalate a complaint, that opacity matters.
Other notable gaps: no human moderators (“only automated safety systems that follow your filters,” per the company’s own FAQ), parental controls listed as “coming soon” but not present, retention defined only as “as long as necessary,” encryption described in generic terms with no AES, TLS, SOC 2, or penetration-test details, mandatory UK-jurisdiction arbitration, and a $100 USD liability cap. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission opened a 6(b) inquiry into AI chatbot companions in September 2025. Foxy was not on the list of seven named companies, but it sits in the same regulatory category.
We scored Foxy Chat AI in May 2026 against the CompanionWise Safety Index, a 23-sub-dimension rubric covering data privacy, emotional safety, age appropriateness, content safety, transparency, and user control. Each sub-dimension scores 0 to 4. The composite score then maps to a public 0-100 scale and a letter grade.
Evidence sources: the Foxy Chat AI privacy policy and Terms of Service at foxychat.ai, the iOS App Store listing including the privacy nutrition label, the Foxy safety/insights pages, UK Companies House filings for Mirai Labs (UK) Ltd. (No. 16583240) and Foxy AI Chat Ltd., a Have I Been Pwned breach check, and the U.S. FTC 6(b) AI-chatbot inquiry from September 2025. Reddit was scraping-blocked at the time of review and we noted the gap.
One automatic override applied: the no-crisis-response auto-F. When an app marketing emotional companionship discloses no suicide-prevention hotline routing, no crisis-keyword detection, and no human escalation path, the Safety Index issues an automatic F regardless of how the other 22 dimensions score. Foxy’s own safety page confirmed this gap.
The full scoring rubric, override rules, and dimension-by-dimension definitions are documented at companionwise.com/how-we-score-ai-companion-apps.
Another indie companion app that scored poorly on minor safeguards is the XOMI AI Safety Index entry.
For the full breakdown of Foxy Chat AI’s corporate structure, age-gating contradictions, and data-training language, read the Foxy Chat AI review.
Safety rating updated after evidence refresh and editorial QA.