In the growing literature on the moral status of robots, authors such as Danaher, Coeckelbergh, and Sparrow have developed novel conceptions of moral status. In contrast to the standard emphasis on capacities, their accounts of moral status focus on human responses to robots. This paper provides both an analysis and critique of their accounts. First, it is argued that that all three authors endorse a response-dependence (RD) account of moral status. Second, it will be shown that these accounts suffer from three major problems. The conclusion is that an RD account is unsuitable to explain moral status and faces more problems than the capacity-based approach.