It has never been easier for people to connect and interact with others, and with the increased use of social media platforms and dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble, your partner could be sat next to you on the sofa whilst conducting a torrid virtual affair. Sexting, as it is colloquially referred to, occurs when someone sends or receives a sexually explicit text image or video on their electronic device. But an online affair doesn’t have to include sexual advances, it can include much more mundane exchanges, too. So, is this behaviour actually considered “cheating” and is it the same as physical adultery? Read on for more information.
It has never been easier for people to connect and interact with others, and with the increased use of social media platforms and dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble, your partner could be sat next to you on the sofa whilst conducting a torrid virtual affair. Sexting, as it is colloquially referred to, occurs when someone sends or receives a sexually explicit text image or video on their electronic device. But an online affair doesn’t have to include sexual advances, it can include much more mundane exchanges, too. So, is this behaviour actually considered “cheating” and is it the same as physical adultery? Read on for more information.
If you have a family law issue and you require legal advice to understand your options, contact specialist family law solicitor Liza Gatrell. Vicki is a trusted and highly capable family lawyer and divorce solicitor and a Partner at the specialist family law firm, Stowe Family Law.
Is virtual infidelity considered as adultery?
Your gut reaction when you hear someone has been caught cheating online, is that it is a fundamental betrayal of trust. But there are many people who engage in such practices with no physical contact taking place who believe that their behaviour doesn’t constitute a real affair.
But online intimacy can seem very much like a physical fling, and do lasting harm to a relationship, leading to loss of trust, insecurity, anger, jealousy, separation, and divorce. However, in legal terms, adultery constitutes the act of having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex who is not your spouse. This means that purely online relationships would not be considered adulterous.
Whilst engaging in cybersex or sexting may be considered as being acts of infidelity, it is not considered a valid reason to cite adultery for divorce. In this situation, before no-fault divorce was enacted, you would cite this as unreasonable behaviour in a divorce application. Now, you no longer need to provide a reason for divorce, and are therefore spared from having to set out upsetting details in your application.
Can I still cite an online affair as a reason for divorce?
You no longer need to give a reason for your divorce in the application, meaning the blame-game that typically came with having to provide reasons for the breakdown of the relationship no longer exists.
Can I still try to prove adultery in court?
Since no-fault divorce was enacted in April 2022, there is no longer any requirement to apportion blame in a divorce, prove adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Whilst citing the infidelity may seem like a vindication of the failure of the relationship, the divorce process is now far less painful and simpler as a result.
Is there an alternative reason to divorce other than no-fault if my partner has been unfaithful?
There is no requirement to give a specific reason for your divorce, because the one and only ground for divorce is the “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage”. Of course, adultery or some other form of infidelity may be the actual reason for the breakdown of the marriage. You just won’t be able to legally state this on the application, or in any court proceedings.
Can I add an infidelity clause to a prenuptial agreement?
In the UK, conduct such as adultery or infidelity is not usually a consideration that would affect financial settlement on divorce. However, there are some cases where conduct can sway the court, such as if a partner’s contribution to the marriage was particularly good or bad, then the court may feel it is unjust to disregard it.
While prenuptial agreements can be legally binding, a judge can decide to question its validity. An infidelity clause may seem like a good way to penalise an errant spouse, but a court may question whether the other party was coerced or in a bad place emotionally when they signed the agreement. At the time of writing, no court in England or Wales has upheld an infidelity clause in a prenuptial agreement.
The emotional reality of online affairs
The emotional impact of online affairs can be just as damaging as physical infidelity. Relationships that are founded on trust and emotional intimacy can crumble when one partner forms a secret connection with someone else through digital platforms. Even if there is no physical contact, activities like messaging, private video chats, or sustained flirtation with another person can feel like a very real betrayal.
For many people, emotional infidelity feels like a genuine form of cheating, and in some cases, perhaps even worse than a physical fling. The secrecy that surrounds online interactions often leads the betrayed partner to question every aspect of their relationship. This kind of doubt can undermine self-esteem, spark insecurity, and leave long-lasting wounds that go far beyond the circumstances of the online interaction itself.
Trust: The hidden casualty
Trust is the foundation of any committed relationship, and once broken, reconstruction can be one of the hardest things two people can attempt. Repeatedly, couples who have experienced online infidelity describe a shift from trust to suspicion. The betrayed partner might begin to monitor emails or social media, replay past exchanges, or become hyper-alert to potential evidence of further infidelity. These behaviours, while understandable, can create a cycle of anxiety and conflict that is very difficult to escape.
Where trust has been eroded, even everyday moments like checking phones, responding to messages, or being friendly with co-workers can trigger insecurity. This ongoing suspicion can transform what was once a loving relationship into one shadowed by doubt, resentment, and fear. Repairing trust requires commitment, transparency, and patience on both sides, but even then, it is never guaranteed.
The disconnect between legal definitions and real-life experiences
One of the confusing realities many couples face is the disconnect between how the law defines adultery and how partners actually experience betrayal. In the UK, adultery remains defined strictly as sexual intercourse with someone outside the marriage, which means that sexting, webcam intimacy or secret messaging do not meet that definition.
Yet for the couple experiencing it, online infidelity often feels every bit as real and just as hurtful as a physical affair. This disparity can lead to frustration with the legal system: a partner might feel that serious emotional harm has occurred, but the law simply does not recognise the behaviour as adultery in a legal sense. This can leave people feeling unheard and invalidated.
It is also worth emphasising that under the present no-fault divorce regime, adultery plays no part in divorce proceedings. Since April 2022, the only ground for divorce is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and courts no longer consider blame, guilt, or fault when dissolving a marriage.
Impact on divorce and family life
Because of the shift to no-fault divorce, evidence of online infidelity is not needed, and in fact is not allowed, as part of the legal divorce process. Gone are the days when one partner had to prove adultery or unreasonable behaviour to secure a divorce. Today, couples can apply jointly or individually without revealing sensitive details about what happened.
From a practical perspective, this means:
- Divorce applications are simpler — no upsetting disclosure of messages or chats is required in court documents.
- Financial settlements are unaffected by online affairs — the court focuses on the financial needs and contributions of both parties, not moral failings.
- Child arrangements are based solely on welfare, not conduct — unless there are safety concerns for the children, courts will aim to maximise their well-being irrespective of parental infidelity.
For many people, the no-fault system feels like a relief and a way of separating without dragging intimate details into a lengthy legal battle. For others, especially those deeply hurt by a partner’s behaviour, it can feel like the law ignores emotional injury. Either way, understanding the legal framework helps couples set realistic expectations when moving forward.
Rebuilding after betrayal
If both partners want to stay together, rebuilding trust after an online affair is possible, but it is usually a long and emotionally taxing process. Here are some approaches that many couples find helpful:
- Open, honest communication: One of the first steps toward healing a relationship is creating space for honest discussion about what happened, why it happened, and how each person feels about it. This means avoiding defensiveness and taking responsibility where appropriate. Many couples find it useful to set boundaries around digital communication, agreeing on transparency about passwords, devices, and social media use.
- Counselling and therapy: Professionals who specialise in relationship counselling can provide a structured setting for both partners to express their feelings and work through their issues. Counselling is about equipping couples with tools to communicate better and rebuild connection, as opposed to assigning blame. Evidence suggests that couples who engage in therapy after infidelity stand a better chance of repairing trust and rebuilding a healthy relationship.
- Time and patience: Trust does not return overnight. The betrayed partner may need time to process hurt and fear, while the partner who engaged in the online affair might struggle with guilt and an urge to avoid difficult conversations. Accepting that healing is gradual, and giving one another space without withdrawing support, can make a significant difference.
- Redefining relationship agreements: Some couples find that clarifying what amounts to acceptable behaviour in their relationship helps prevent future misunderstandings. This might involve mutually agreed boundaries around social media, dating apps, or friendships with people outside the relationship. Even if it feels uncomfortable at first, setting shared expectations reinforces respect and consideration for the other party.
- Knowing when to walk away: Not all relationships survive infidelity, online or otherwise. For some couples, the betrayal cuts too deeply, or the patterns that led to the affair reflect underlying issues that cannot be resolved. In such cases, ending the relationship may be the best choice for both partners.
Recognising when trust cannot be rebuilt is not a sign of failure; it is an acknowledgment of reality. The divorce process supports this perspective by allowing couples to separate without proving fault. But whatever path you choose, staying together or parting ways, the focus should be on healing and finding a future where both parties can thrive.
Online conduct and the financial settlement
An online affair will not ordinarily entitle the other spouse to a larger share of the matrimonial assets. The purpose is to reach a fair financial outcome, rather than to compensate one spouse for hurt or punish the other for disloyalty.
Money spent during an online relationship can create a separate issue. Modest spending on subscriptions, gifts or travel will not usually justify a detailed legal dispute, particularly where the costs of investigating and arguing about it would exceed the sum involved. The position may be different if a spouse has transferred substantial funds, accumulated secret debt, bought valuable gifts, or deliberately depleted joint savings.
Digital evidence needs careful handling
The temptation to gather every possible message can be strong, especially when a spouse denies what has happened. Before accessing an account, installing monitoring software, or copying private material, it is sensible to obtain legal advice. Knowing or guessing a partner’s password does not necessarily give authority to enter an account, and unauthorised access may raise privacy, data protection or criminal law issues.
Where material has come into someone’s possession legitimately, it should be preserved without editing. Screenshots can omit dates, context, and account details, so retaining the original message thread may be more useful.
Anyone who feels unsafe should prioritise personal safety and take advice about protective measures rather than attempting a confrontation designed to secure an admission.
The rise of AI partners
Online intimacy no longer always involves another human being; general chatbots are increasingly used as private confidants, while dedicated companion services allow a user to create an AI girlfriend, boyfriend or romantic persona. The user may choose the character’s appearance and manner, exchange affectionate or sexual messages, and return to a conversation that appears to remember preferences and shared history. Some services add voice, images, or role-play, which can make the relationship feel more personal than an ordinary exchange with software.
An AI construct is not a legal person, and a relationship with it cannot amount to adultery under the traditional legal definition because there is no human third party with whom sexual intercourse has taken place. The sense of betrayal may be intensified if the user has disclosed private details about the marriage or compared their spouse unfavourably with the companion.
The attraction some people feel is understandable; an AI companion is available at any hour, replies immediately and can be shaped around the user’s preferred tone. It does not arrive tired from work, ask for time alone, or bring its own competing account of an argument. A conversation can therefore offer the sensation of undivided attention without the ordinary friction, responsibility, and compromise of a relationship.
But this can also distort the user’s view of their marriage; a chatbot works from the account it is given. If a person describes an argument while omitting their own conduct, the system cannot question a witness, observe the couple, or recover the missing history. It may respond sympathetically to the version placed before it and, depending on its design, mirror the user’s language or affirm an interpretation because affirmation keeps the exchange comfortable.
A 2026 study involving five preregistered studies and more than 12,000 human-AI conversations reported that sycophantic systems provided immediate emotional support but, over time, could reduce satisfaction with real-world social interaction. Participants often preferred the more agreeable system because it made them feel understood, rather than because it gave better advice.
In practice, a user may tell a chatbot that their spouse is distant and receive repeated confirmation that their needs are being neglected. The chatbot has not heard that the spouse is caring for a parent, coping with illness, or has repeatedly tried to discuss the relationship. Even a carefully designed system can make mistakes; an overly agreeable one may turn a partial account into an apparently independent verdict. The user can then return to the marriage believing that a neutral intelligence has confirmed something is wrong, when the response was generated from the user’s own framing.
Privacy and money in AI relationships
Conversations with an AI companion can contain unusually sensitive material: sexual preferences, allegations about a spouse, health information, photographs, financial worries, and details about children. The apparent privacy of a one-to-one chat should not be confused with the confidentiality of a conversation with a solicitor or therapist. Users should read the service’s privacy terms, understand whether conversations may be retained or reviewed, and avoid uploading another person’s intimate image or confidential information without consent.
Spending can also move an AI relationship from a private pastime into a family finance issue. Monthly subscriptions may be small, but some platforms sell premium messages, images, gifts, or custom features. If substantial joint money is spent or debt is hidden, that expenditure may require explanation during financial disclosure. As with a human online affair, the court’s concern would be the financial effect, not a judgment about the user’s fantasy.
What online infidelity changes legally
For most separating couples, an online or AI affair changes the personal history of the marriage but not the legal test for divorce. A sole or joint application can be made on the basis that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, without having to give details about intimate conversations or proving who was responsible.
These facts may nevertheless have consequences where they reveal serious spending, concealed assets, harassment, threats, unsafe sharing of children’s information or another identifiable welfare risk.
A person considering separation should retain relevant financial information, avoid unlawful or intrusive attempts to obtain proof by “hacking” someone’s emails or bank accounts, and instead obtain advice on the issues that will shape the outcome of the divorce. The emotional injury can be very real even when the law does not call the conduct adultery. Understanding that distinction allows the personal betrayal to be addressed in the right setting while the divorce, finances and arrangements for children remain focused on the applicable family law.
Find The Best Divorce & Family Lawyers Near You
We independently review and list the top divorce lawyers and family solicitors in the towns and cities near you. 100% free.
The information on this website is to be considered a guide and is therefore not legal advice. You use this information with the understanding that Wiselaw does not accept liability for any direct or indirect losses as a result of anyone relying on or acting upon the information on this website. Whilst we endeavour to provide accurate information, Wiselaw does not accept liability for any errors or omissions on this website.
