Synthetic intimacy, human vulnerability and the business of being wanted
He is handsome. Very handsome. Italian, perhaps. Well dressed, successful, apparently single.
His posts are not only about cars, clothes or beautiful places. They are about relationships.
When I find my wife, I will treat her like this.
My future woman will never have to worry about that.
I am still waiting for the right one.
Then come the comments.
Women flirt. They volunteer information about themselves. Some joke about applying for the position. Others appear genuinely captivated. They are not simply admiring a beautiful image.
They are responding to the suggestion of romantic possibility.
But what if the man does not exist?
That changes the question completely.
From synthetic identity to synthetic intimacy
In Part IV of this series, JAS examined the synthetic persona: an apparently human social-media identity built around a person who may never have existed.
But physical attractiveness is only the beginning.
Give that synthetic person a personality, opinions, vulnerability and apparent romantic availability and something much more powerful can emerge: synthetic intimacy.
This is not theoretical psychology. Research increasingly shows that people can develop parasocial relationships — one-sided emotional bonds — with virtual influencers. A 2025 University of Amsterdam study followed 185 young adults for four weeks and found that parasocial relationship intensity increased over time for both human and virtual influencers, with broadly similar relationship development.
Research published in 2026 goes further. One study found that perceived interactivity combined with physical attractiveness can strengthen parasocial romantic relationships with AI virtual agents. Another found that attractiveness and perceived humanness can contribute to emotional attachment to virtual human influencers.
In other words: knowing that something is virtual does not necessarily prevent human attachment.
That is where the commercial question becomes uncomfortable.
What exactly is being monetised?
Influencer marketing has always monetised attention. An attractive person builds an audience and recommends a watch, hotel, protein shake or handbag.
Synthetic intimacy introduces another possibility.
The valuable asset may no longer simply be attention.
It may be attachment.
A synthetic persona can appear interested, available, lonely, caring or romantic. It can repeatedly create the suggestion of a relationship that might somehow become possible.
Maybe he will notice me.
Maybe she understands me.
Maybe I am exactly the kind of person this account is talking about.
If that emotional involvement subsequently drives views, subscriptions, paid conversations, affiliate sales, advertising revenue or product purchases, human vulnerability has become part of the commercial architecture.
Research already demonstrates the economic relevance of these relationships. A 2026 study found that parasocial relationships with virtual influencers directly affected behavioural intention and also worked indirectly through perceived value. Researchers explicitly identify relationship-building with virtual influencers as commercially relevant.
That does not mean every virtual influencer is manipulating vulnerable people. Nor does every follower who flirts with an attractive avatar believe a real relationship is possible.
But it does mean that emotional attachment is no longer merely an accidental side effect.
It can have commercial value.
The law already recognises vulnerability — but does it recognise this?
European consumer law is not blind to vulnerability.
Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, commercial practices can be assessed from the perspective of a clearly identifiable group that is particularly vulnerable because of age, mental or physical infirmity or credulity, where that vulnerability can reasonably be foreseen by the trader. Misleading and aggressive commercial practices are prohibited.
European law also already treats many influencers as traders when they conduct regular commercial activities. Advertising and other commercial content must be identifiable as such. The European Commission states that followers are entitled to transparent and reliable information, and its 2023 sweep found widespread failures to disclose commercial content properly.
But synthetic intimacy creates a more difficult question.
What if the commercial persuasion starts before the advertisement?
The account spends months constructing a desirable personality. Followers become emotionally invested. Romantic availability is repeatedly suggested. Only later are products, subscriptions or other monetised interactions introduced.
The commercial mechanism may therefore not be contained in one misleading advertisement.
The relationship itself may be part of the sales funnel.
That deserves considerably more legal attention.
The difference between fantasy and deception
There is nothing wrong with fantasy.
Films, novels, advertising and popular music have always traded in romantic fantasy. Nor should every fictional or AI-generated character carry a legal warning simply because somebody finds it attractive.
The relevant distinction is transparency.
A fictional character in a film does not pretend that the viewer has a chance of being chosen.
A synthetic social-media persona can.
And when an apparently autonomous person repeatedly presents himself or herself as romantically available, interacts with followers and benefits commercially from the resulting attachment, the boundary between entertainment and commercial persuasion becomes much harder to identify.
The question is therefore not whether people should be allowed to fall for fantasy.
Of course they should.
The question is whether businesses should be allowed to engineer ambiguity about whether the relationship opportunity itself is real and then monetise the emotional response created by that ambiguity.
That is a very different proposition.
JAS Aware Solution: disclose the relationship architecture
Part IV proposed a simple principle:
Label the identity, not only the content.
A recurring digitally created person should be identifiable as a synthetic persona.
Part V adds another layer.
Where synthetic personas are commercially operated and designed to cultivate personal or romantic attachment, users should also be able to understand who controls the interaction and how it is monetised.
Not pages of legal language. Not another unreadable terms-and-conditions document.
Clear information.
SYNTHETIC PERSONA
This is a digitally created identity.
And where relevant:
COMMERCIAL AI INTERACTION
Interactions with this persona may be automated and are operated for commercial purposes.
That would not prohibit virtual relationships.
It would not prohibit AI companions.
It would not prohibit fictional influencers, romantic storytelling or people enjoying any of them.
It would restore something much simpler:
informed emotional consent.
Because there is an important difference between choosing to participate in a fantasy and being encouraged to believe that the fantasy might choose you.
For decades, advertising has studied human desire.
Artificial Intelligence gives businesses something new: the ability to embody that desire in a human-like character that can potentially speak back.
That creates extraordinary commercial possibilities.
It also creates responsibility.
Human vulnerability should never become invisible infrastructure in a business model.
JAS Aware Solution
Transparency should extend beyond AI-generated content to the identity, interaction and commercial purpose behind synthetic personas.
People do not need protection from imagination.
They need enough information to know when imagination is being deliberately presented as human possibility.
JAS — Aware Solutions
Research. Analysis. Practical solutions.