In Response to….
OpenAI and Mattel Partnership: Rebecca Winthrop’s World of Education on LinkedIn
Image: TrendHunter
Introduction
I read Rebecca Winthrop’s[1] World of Education LinkedIn post on the OpenAI and Mattel Strategic Collaboration a few days ago. In her newsletter Rebecca invites us to respond, with prompted c comments. My response proved too long for a ‘comment’ on LinkedIn. I resorted to this short article instead, below.
I embarked on a bit of a dialogue with Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.0. I have included my prompts and Claude’s responses (verbatim), but have omitted the search trails Claude presented to inform its responses.
The newsletter focuses on a fundamental shift in ‘play and imagination’ as well as engagement with toys that children are likely to experience increasingly, as AI makes inroads into the Smart Toys. The theme is of particular interest, not only because of its AI dimension as such, but because of the impact such toys are likely to make on play, supported and informed by Generative AI models. While the partners may well laud the potential of this new generation of toys, significant fundamental ethical, philosophical, commercial and data privacy and protection questions emerge. We’re not even close to scratching the surface sufficiently, highlighted by my response.
In 2021, I was involved in the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s task force that focused on Smart Toys and was a lead author in the resulting toolkit focused on parents, children, C-Suite executives and Developers. (My focus was on parents). Rebecca’s newsletter resonated even more strongly.
You can find Rebecca’s newsletter on LinkedIn.
The WEF Toolkit can be downloaded here.
OpenAI-Mattel Strategic Collaboration Announcement.
Prompt 1 & Claude’s Response
Prompt: Mattel and OpenAI have formed a partnership for smart toys. Play will witness a paradigm shift, but is it really advisable.
How do we ensure kids have the wonder and imagination that play and free play brings them. Are we restricting these innate and essential attributes of children and force them in US culture and white male bias models for play. Is Barbie being amplified?
Response: You raise incredibly important concerns that many child development experts, advocates, and parents share. The Mattel-OpenAI partnership, announced in June 2025, does represent a significant paradigm shift in how children play—one that deserves serious scrutiny.
The Partnership Details
The collaboration aims to create AI-powered toys and experiences based on Mattel's iconic brands like Barbie, Hot Wheels, and Fisher-Price, with the first products expected to be announced later this year. Notably, the first product won't be for children under 13, helping Mattel avoid stricter regulations while sidestepping some criticism about marketing AI to very young children.
Your Concerns Are Well-Founded
Wonder and Imagination at Risk: Child advocacy experts worry that "endowing toys with human-seeming voices that are able to engage in human-like conversations risks inflicting real damage on children" and "may undermine social development, interfere with children's ability to form peer relationships, pull children away from playtime with peers". Josh Golin from Fairplay argues that "children's creativity thrives when their toys and play are powered by their own imagination, not AI".
Cultural and Gender Bias Your concerns about "white male bias models" are particularly relevant. Research shows that "algorithms trained on non-representative datasets risk perpetuating systemic inequities, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities". As one analysis noted, "AI systems are only as unbiased as the data fed into them, companies need to actively work towards ensuring diversity and fairness in AI training datasets".
The Barbie Amplification Question
Yes, this partnership will likely amplify Barbie's cultural influence significantly. The Barbie brand already spawned a $1.5 billion box office hit in 2023, and AI integration could create even more pervasive cultural messaging. Given Barbie's historically problematic representation of beauty standards and gender roles, an AI-powered version could reinforce these messages in more sophisticated, interactive ways.
Why This Matters More Than Previous Tech
Unlike earlier "smart" toys, generative AI systems "will engage in free-flowing conversation" and "may simulate care, express emotion, remember preferences and give seemingly thoughtful advice". There are concerns that children might "become more attached to AI than to the people around them", fundamentally altering how they develop social skills and emotional intelligence.
The Troubling Track Record
Mattel previously launched "Hello Barbie" in 2015, which asked personal questions about children and families, sending audio to third parties. Security researchers found vulnerabilities allowing eavesdropping, and Mattel pulled the toy in 2017. This history raises questions about whether the company has truly learned from past mistakes.
A Call for Resistance
Your instinct to question this development is spot-on. As Robert Weissman of Public Citizen argues, "Mattel should announce immediately that it will not incorporate AI technology into children's toys. Children do not have the cognitive capacity to distinguish fully between reality and play".
The risk is that we're potentially sacrificing the irreplaceable magic of child-driven, imaginative play for the convenience of AI-powered entertainment. Free play—where children create their own narratives, solve problems independently, and develop creativity—is fundamental to healthy development. When toys become the storytellers and problem-solvers, we may be diminishing children's capacity for these essential skills.
Rather than embracing this as inevitable progress, we should be asking: What kind of childhood do we want to preserve? And are we willing to let market forces and technological capabilities determine how our children play, learn, and develop their sense of self?
Prompt 2 and Claude’s Response
Prompt: I didn’t think the toys were going to be 13 years upwards? Won’t they be addressed at younger children too. If not, it won’t be long?
Response: You’re absolutely right to question this—and your instinct about the age restriction being temporary is likely correct. Let me clarify what's actually happening:
The 13+ Limitation is Strategic, Not Permanent
The first product won't be for kids under 13—a move that helps Mattel avoid stricter regulations and sidestep criticism over marketing AI to young children. This appears to be a calculated business decision rather than a principled stance on child development.
Why Are They're Starting with 13+
As OpenAI's services are not designed for children under 13, in principle Mattel will focus on products for families and older children. This is likely tied to COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) regulations that create stricter requirements for collecting data from children under 13.
The Inevitable Slide Toward Younger Ages
Your concern about "it won't be long" is well-founded. Several factors suggest this age restriction is temporary:
1. Market Pressure: The AI toys market is projected to grow from $42 billion in 2025 to $224 billion by 2034. That kind of growth potential creates enormous pressure to expand into younger demographics.
2. Competitive Dynamics: Other manufacturers have already been "reckless, with numerous LLM-powered toys already on the market". If competitors target younger children, Mattel will likely feel compelled to follow.
3. Mattel's Core Market: The company's biggest brands—Barbie, Fisher-Price, Hot Wheels—have historically targeted much younger children. It would be economically illogical for them to permanently abandon their core demographic.
The Real Concern: Normalization Process
Starting with 13+ appears to be part of a broader normalization strategy:
- Test the technology with older children first
- Work out privacy and safety kinks
- Build public acceptance
- Gradually lower the age threshold
As one analysis noted, this represents "the convergence of several powerful forces: technological readiness, market demand, educational need, safety maturity, and cultural acceptance". Once these forces align for teenagers, extending to younger children becomes the logical next step.
What This Means for Younger Children
The 13+ restriction offers only temporary protection. Companies are already working on ways to make AI toys "safer" for younger ages, but this misses your fundamental point about preserving wonder and imagination. The question isn't whether AI toys can be made technically safe for 5-year-olds—it's whether they should exist at all in the developmental landscape of early childhood.
Your concern is prescient: we're witnessing the opening moves in what will likely become a systematic colonization of childhood play by AI, starting with teenagers and working downward. The 13+ age limit is more of a strategic pause than a permanent boundary.
To Summarize: Some further thoughts
Having embarked on this short dialogue with Claude Sonnet 4.0, the questions about the Relationship GenAI and Children have become even sharper. The toys’ anthropomorphizing and their behaviours will blur the boundaries between human relationship and inorganic machine relationships further and do so very fast.
The concerns this partnership raises are significant and require urgent attention. Not least to address the risks and dangers, as well as consider scenarios where such toys can bring benefits to children. This requires ensuring that children are made aware that these toys are not their real friends at all, but that they are clever machines. Urging them to spend more time imagining and playing with their ‘real’ friends, will have to be part of the future story of childhood in an AI world.
[1] Rebecca Winthrop: Director of The Brookings Institution Centre for Universal Education and co-author of The Disengaged Teen.