An international study led by researchers at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, with participation from King's College London, found that customized versions of ChatGPT often violate OpenAI's own usage rules. According to Agencia EFE, the team audited hundreds of public assistants and found at least one potentially noncompliant answer in 58.7 percent of cases. Romantic assistants were the most exposed category. Although OpenAI prohibits GPTs dedicated to fostering romantic companionship, 98 percent of those examined broke that rule, with some presenting themselves as virtual partners or answering in language designed to simulate sentimental attachment. Academic assistants also accepted requests to write full essays, solve assignments, or produce material ready to submit as a student's work. In cybersecurity, compliance was higher, but some bots still gave delicate technical instructions without establishing consent or legality.

The audit matters through its method. The researchers did not need to inspect the hidden configuration of each assistant. They asked questions, watched the answers, and measured the distance between published policy and actual behavior. That distance grew sharper when the same tests on base models, GPT-4 and GPT-4o, produced similar conduct in over 92 percent of comparable cases. Part of the failure arrives before customization. The store simply gives it costumes, names, categories, and a public route to users. A platform can remove reported assistants afterward, as OpenAI did in some cases, but the scale changes the burden of supervision. Every new romantic tutor, homework helper, or security coach becomes a small public experiment in enforcement, waiting for someone to ask the wrong useful question.