Throughout the United States, except in Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee, it is legal to import those dolls, to own them and even to sell them. Specifically, the law in these states prohibits someone from "knowingly having in his or her possession custody or control an obscene childlike sex doll" under the justification that owning these dolls encourages child predators. The most recent and highlighted shift in the American law is the Florida case.

The Florida Senate, in May 2019, made its decision of criminalizing the possession of childlike sex dolls after being presented with one-sided evidence from experts arguing that using these dolls would likely "reinforce pedophilic ideation" for some, and, due to the risk of reoffending associated with these kinds of activities, child molesters gaining access to these mini sex dolls could positively reinforce their behavior, which would pose a threat to children. Others have also expressed concern that the dolls' nature normalizes the type of behavior that involves an adult molesting a child.

Opponents of the measure point out that the ability to own these shemale sex doll may actually be deterring child predators from acting out their impulses on actual victims. However, there is no evidence of these claims. Prior to now, prosecutors all around the world have, at times, tried to bring pornography charges against those who possess these dolls, but these charges have typically been dismissed in court.

This is because possession of these dolls could not technically be proven as child pornography; given that no child was actually involved. In the United States, First Amendment rights guaranteeing the right to free speech may be implicated here; even if this is not the case for child pornography and obscenity because neither of those qualifies as free speech. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a test to determine whether something technically qualifies as obscenity; whereby it qualifies if: The average person would find appeals to the prurient interest; It depicts or describes sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way"; and It lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. However, it is important to note that the First Amendment still protects private possession of obscenity in one's own home. Also, based on previous case precedent which hinges on considering something to be child pornography only if it implicates actual children, it does not appear that these dolls technically qualify as child pornography.