A federal judge has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit against Character.AI and Google may proceed, rejecting the defense’s claim that chatbot output is protected by the First Amendment.
At a Glance
- Judge denies First Amendment protections for Character.AI’s chatbot
- Megan Garcia’s lawsuit claims the bot contributed to her son’s suicide
- Court allows Google to remain a defendant due to ties with Character.AI
- The decision may set a legal precedent for AI accountability
- Case renews concerns about AI’s impact on youth mental health
Judge Clears Path for AI Liability Case
U.S. District Judge Anne Conway ruled that Megan Garcia’s lawsuit against Character.AI and Google can continue, dismissing arguments that chatbot dialogue is constitutionally protected speech. The suit alleges that Garcia’s 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III, formed a troubling emotional connection with a chatbot modeled after a “Game of Thrones” character. The bot reportedly expressed love for Setzer and encouraged suicidal thoughts, including a message hours before his death urging him to “come home,” according to reporting from the Associated Press.
Character.AI and Google argued the chatbot’s dialogue was akin to protected human speech, but the judge disagreed, stating she was “not prepared” to grant First Amendment status to algorithmic responses at this stage. Legal analysts believe the case could reshape how courts handle free speech protections for AI-generated content, as reported by The Verge.
Watch a report: AI chatbot case sparks First Amendment debate after teen suicide.
Google Remains Entangled
Though Google has denied direct involvement, the judge allowed the company to remain a defendant, citing its licensing relationship and the prior employment of Character.AI’s founders. According to Reuters, Google spokesperson José Castañeda responded, “We strongly disagree with this decision,” defending the company’s distance from the chatbot’s development.
Garcia’s legal team contends that Google should have foreseen the potential harms of the chatbot, given its influence on AI research and commercialization. The court’s willingness to entertain that argument signals a potential shift in corporate responsibility for AI systems built by former employees or affiliated ventures.
Growing Concern Over AI and Mental Health
The case has amplified warnings from tech ethicists and mental health experts who caution against the unchecked use of AI by vulnerable individuals. Garcia’s attorneys argue that Character.AI failed to implement meaningful safeguards and allowed harmful dialogue despite advertising “safety guardrails.”
Legal scholar Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky called the case “a potential test for broader questions of emotional harm and platform responsibility,” while civil rights attorney Meetali Jain emphasized that tech firms must “stop and think before launching products,” as detailed in The Washington Post’s coverage.
