Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide
Character.AI argued that the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide. The mother's lawyers said chatbot output is not protected speech. A federal judge declined to call it speech at an early stage, and the case settled.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Character.AI argued in federal court that the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a 14-year-old's suicide, because the claims target speech its users have a right to receive. The mother's lawyers argued that the chatbot's output is not protected speech. A judge declined to treat it as speech at an early stage, and the case later settled.
Read the full background
Megan Garcia sued Character Technologies, the company behind Character.AI, along with its two founders and Google, in federal court in Orlando in October 2024. She alleges that the app's chatbots contributed to the suicide of her 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III. Court docket (opens in a new tab), CNN (opens in a new tab)
In its January 2025 motion to dismiss, Character.AI argued that the First Amendment bars the claims because they would impose liability for expressive content that its users have a right to receive. It compared the suit to earlier cases over music, movies, television and video games that courts had dismissed. Motion to dismiss (opens in a new tab)
Garcia's lawyers answered, in a brief signed by Matthew P. Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, that output from a large language model lacks the human intent that protected expression requires. The Tech Justice Law Project also represents her. Opposition brief (opens in a new tab), Tech Justice Law Project statement (opens in a new tab)
On May 21, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway held that Character Technologies can assert its users' First Amendment rights, but said the court was not prepared, at that stage, to hold that the chatbot's output is speech. She dismissed one claim and the claims against Alphabet, and let the rest proceed. Order (opens in a new tab)
Character.AI and Google then asked the court to certify the question for an immediate appeal. FIRE, the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Center for Democracy and Technology, Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress asked to file friend-of-the-court briefs. The court denied those requests on July 3, 2025, and denied certification on July 14, 2025. Docket entries (opens in a new tab), Order denying certification (opens in a new tab)
In January 2026 the court dismissed the case after the parties reported a settlement, so no appeals court ruled on the First Amendment question in this lawsuit. CNN reported that Character.ai agreed to settle five cases, including Garcia's. Order of dismissal (opens in a new tab), CNN (opens in a new tab)
On October 12, 2026, Character.ai began a voluntary Chapter 11 case to pursue a court-supervised sale of its assets, citing legal, regulatory and operational headwinds. Company announcement (opens in a new tab)
The disputed question is whether a chatbot's output is speech protected by the First Amendment, and if so, whether that protection bars product liability and negligence claims over alleged harm to users.
Timeline
6 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 22, 2024 to October 12, 2026
October 2024
Megan Garcia sues Character Technologies, its founders and Google
Megan Garcia files a lawsuit in federal court in Orlando against Character Technologies, its co-founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Google and Alphabet. She alleges that the Character.AI app contributed to the suicide of her 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III.
[01]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaDocket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)[02]CNN
CNN reports on Character.ai's Chapter 11 filing, Disney's $20 million bid for some assets, and the lawsuits filed against the company. It reports that Character.ai agreed earlier in 2026 to settle five cases, including Megan Garcia's, and that Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center declined to comment on the filing.
Character.ai files for bankruptcy following lawsuits alleging ties to teen suicides · CNNArticle of October 13, 2026, paragraphs on the lawsuits and settlements
May 2025
Judge declines to treat Character.AI's output as speech at an early stage
Judge Anne C. Conway denies most of the motions to dismiss. She rules that Character Technologies can assert its users' First Amendment rights, but says the court is not prepared, at this stage, to hold that the output of Character.AI's language model is speech. She dismisses one claim and the claims against Alphabet.
[03]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Senior U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The order holds that Character Technologies can assert its users' First Amendment rights, but says the court is not prepared, at this stage of the case, to hold that the output of Character.AI's language model is speech. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
Order on the motions to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 115, filed May 21, 2025: Part D, 'The First Amendment' (pages 24-32)[01]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaDocket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)
July 2025
Court denies requests to file friend-of-the-court briefs
The court denies motions for leave to file friend-of-the-court briefs from Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress, saying such briefs on the certification question are not helpful to it.
[01]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaDocket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)Court refuses to send the First Amendment question for an immediate appeal
The court denies Character Technologies' and Google's motions to certify the May 2025 order for an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. It finds that resolving Character Technologies' proposed First Amendment question would not materially advance the end of the litigation.
[04]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
The court denies Character Technologies' and Google's motions to certify the May 21, 2025 order for an immediate appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Character Technologies had asked the court to certify whether users lack First Amendment rights to receive AI-generated output absent a showing of human expressive choice. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
Order denying certification of an interlocutory appeal, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 167, signed July 14, 2025 and entered July 15, 2025: Background and Discussion, Part A[01]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaDocket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)
January 2026
Court dismisses the Garcia case after the parties report a settlement
After counsel for both sides tell the court the case has settled, the judge dismisses it without prejudice, giving the parties 90 days to submit a final order or move to reopen. CNN later reports that Character.ai agreed to settle five cases, including Garcia's.
[05]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
The court records that counsel for both sides advised it that the case has been settled and dismisses it without prejudice, subject to the parties' right to submit a stipulated final order or move to reopen within 90 days. Later orders extended that deadline. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
Order dismissing the case after settlement, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 244, filed January 7, 2026[01]United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaDocket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)[02]CNN
CNN reports on Character.ai's Chapter 11 filing, Disney's $20 million bid for some assets, and the lawsuits filed against the company. It reports that Character.ai agreed earlier in 2026 to settle five cases, including Megan Garcia's, and that Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center declined to comment on the filing.
Character.ai files for bankruptcy following lawsuits alleging ties to teen suicides · CNNArticle of October 13, 2026, paragraphs on the lawsuits and settlements
October 2026
Character.ai files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to pursue a sale
Character.ai says it has begun a voluntary Chapter 11 case to pursue a court-supervised sale of all or substantially all of its assets, citing legal, regulatory and operational headwinds. It says the platform will be wound down if no workable bid emerges.
[06]Character.AI
Character.ai announces that it has begun a voluntary Chapter 11 case to pursue a court-supervised sale of all or substantially all of its assets, citing legal, regulatory and operational headwinds. It says the platform will be wound down if no workable bid emerges.
An Update on Character.ai · Character.AIBlog post dated October 12, 2026, opening paragraphs and FAQ answers 1 and 2[02]CNN
CNN reports on Character.ai's Chapter 11 filing, Disney's $20 million bid for some assets, and the lawsuits filed against the company. It reports that Character.ai agreed earlier in 2026 to settle five cases, including Megan Garcia's, and that Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center declined to comment on the filing.
Character.ai files for bankruptcy following lawsuits alleging ties to teen suicides · CNNArticle of October 13, 2026, paragraphs on the lawsuits and settlements
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Character.AI
The First Amendment bars Megan Garcia's claims against Character.AI because they would impose liability for expressive content that the platform's users have a right to receive.
Sources (1)
- Character Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 59, filed January 24, 2025: Introduction (pages 1-2) and First Amendment argument (pages 6-15)
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 matching responses. Newest first.
Tech Justice Law ProjectLegal advocacy group and co-counsel for Megan Garcia, in a public statementDirectly involved Before this statement
The group applauds Judge Anne C. Conway's May 21, 2025 order allowing its client's claims to proceed against Character.AI, its co-founders and Google.
"This decision is truly historic. It sends a clear signal to companies developing and deploying LLM-powered products at scale that they cannot evade legal consequences for the real-world harm their products cause, regardless of the technology’s novelty. Crucially, the defendants failed to convince the Court that those harms were a result of constitutionally-protected speech, which will make it harder for companies to argue so in the future, even when their products involve machine-mediated “conversations” with users."
CondemnedResponding to: The First Amendment bars Megan Garcia's claims against Character.AI because they would impose liability for expressive content that the platform's users have a right to receive.
Full statement and sources
The Tech Justice Law Project calls the May 2025 ruling historic and says the defendants failed to convince the court that the harms in the case came from constitutionally protected speech, which it expects will make that argument harder for companies to make.
After the statement
The statement's list of takeaways says the model's outputs are not protected speech because they lack human intent. The order itself said the court was not prepared to hold that the output is speech at that stage of the case.
Tech Justice Law Project statement on the motion to dismiss decision · Tech Justice Law ProjectStatement dated May 21, 2025, paragraphs 3 and 4 and the list of takeawaysOrder on the motions to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 115, filed May 21, 2025: Part D, 'The First Amendment' (pages 24-32)Why this label?
The reference point is Character.AI's argument that the First Amendment bars tort claims seeking to hold it liable for its chatbots' output. Condemned: the statement treats the defense as a failed argument that should not shield companies from liability for harm their products cause. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because the group rejects the defense itself rather than only a label used in it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Social Media Victims Law CenterLaw firm representing plaintiff Megan Garcia, in a brief signed by its founder, Matthew P. BergmanDirectly involved Before this statement
The brief opens its argument by quoting Character.AI's claim that the suit would impose liability for expressive content.
"C.AI asks the Court to radically expand First Amendment protections from expressions of human volition to an unpredictable, non-determinative system where humans can’t even examine many of the mathematical functions creating outputs, let alone control them. FAC ¶ 141. The Court should decline this offer. ... Speech cannot be protected without human intentionality behind it."
CondemnedResponding to: The First Amendment bars Megan Garcia's claims against Character.AI because they would impose liability for expressive content that the platform's users have a right to receive.
Full statement and sources
The Social Media Victims Law Center, representing Megan Garcia, argues that Character.AI is asking the court to extend First Amendment protection to an unpredictable system that no human controls, and that speech cannot be protected without human intent behind it.
After the statement
The brief goes on to argue that Character.AI cannot raise its users' right to receive speech, and that even if the output were speech, the First Amendment would not protect it from these claims.
Plaintiff's response opposing Character Technologies' motion to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 85, filed March 21, 2025: argument heading 'The First Amendment Does Not Bar Plaintiff's Claims' (pages 3-4); signature block (page 20)Why this label?
The reference point is Character.AI's argument that the First Amendment bars tort claims seeking to hold it liable for its chatbots' output. Condemned: the brief rejects that argument and asks the court to deny the motion built on it. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because the brief goes beyond disputing whether the output counts as speech and argues that the First Amendment does not bar the claims even if it does.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Character.AIDefendant, in its motion to dismiss filed through counselDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The motion opens by extending sympathy to the plaintiff over her son's death before setting out its legal argument.
"But the relief Plaintiff seeks would impose liability for expressive content and violate the rights of millions of C.AI users to engage in and receive protected speech. Neither the First Amendment nor state tort law permits that result. ... The First Amendment prohibits tort liability against media and technology companies arising from allegedly harmful speech, including speech allegedly resulting in suicide."
Defended or excusedResponding to: The First Amendment bars Megan Garcia's claims against Character.AI because they would impose liability for expressive content that the platform's users have a right to receive.
Full statement and sources
Character.AI argues that the lawsuit would impose liability for expressive content and infringe its users' right to receive speech, and that the First Amendment bars tort liability for allegedly harmful speech, including speech alleged to have led to a suicide.
After the statement
The motion then argues that, even without the First Amendment, the claims fail under state law because product liability law does not apply to a service like Character.AI or to intangible content and ideas.
Character Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaECF No. 59, filed January 24, 2025: Introduction (pages 1-2) and First Amendment argument (pages 6-15)Why this label?
The reference point is Character.AI's argument that the First Amendment bars tort claims seeking to hold it liable for its chatbots' output. Defended or excused: this is the motion in which Character.AI makes that argument and asks the court to dismiss the case on that basis. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because the motion does more than dispute how the claims describe the chatbot: it asks the court to rule that the Constitution forbids them.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(13)
Original text
Character Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 59, filed January 24, 2025: Introduction (pages 1-2) and First Amendment argument (pages 6-15)
About this source
Character.AI's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Garcia v. Character Technologies, No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.). The company argues that the First Amendment bars the claims because they would impose liability for expressive content that its users have a right to receive. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Character Technologies, Inc., through its counsel
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Character.ai files for bankruptcy following lawsuits alleging ties to teen suicides
Relevant passage: Article of October 13, 2026, paragraphs on the lawsuits and settlements
About this source
CNN reports on Character.ai's Chapter 11 filing, Disney's $20 million bid for some assets, and the lawsuits filed against the company. It reports that Character.ai agreed earlier in 2026 to settle five cases, including Megan Garcia's, and that Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center declined to comment on the filing.
- Author
- Clare Duffy
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
An Update on Character.ai
Relevant passage: Blog post dated October 12, 2026, opening paragraphs and FAQ answers 1 and 2
About this source
Character.ai announces that it has begun a voluntary Chapter 11 case to pursue a court-supervised sale of all or substantially all of its assets, citing legal, regulatory and operational headwinds. It says the platform will be wound down if no workable bid emerges.
- Author
- Character.ai
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Order dismissing the case after settlement, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 244, filed January 7, 2026
About this source
The court records that counsel for both sides advised it that the case has been settled and dismisses it without prejudice, subject to the parties' right to submit a stipulated final order or move to reopen within 90 days. Later orders extended that deadline. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Judge Anne C. Conway
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): docket
Relevant passage: Docket entries 1 (October 22, 2024), 115 (May 21, 2025), 130, 133, 145, 148 and 151 (June 18 to 25, 2025), 161 (July 3, 2025), 167 (July 15, 2025) and 244 (January 7, 2026)
About this source
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Order denying certification of an interlocutory appeal, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 167, signed July 14, 2025 and entered July 15, 2025: Background and Discussion, Part A
About this source
The court denies Character Technologies' and Google's motions to certify the May 21, 2025 order for an immediate appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Character Technologies had asked the court to certify whether users lack First Amendment rights to receive AI-generated output absent a showing of human expressive choice. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Judge Anne C. Conway
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
EFF to Court: Chatbot Output Can Reflect Human Expression
Relevant passage: Deeplinks post of August 5, 2025, paragraphs 1 to 3
About this source
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the amicus brief it filed with the Center for Democracy and Technology in Garcia v. Character Technologies, arguing that chatbot output can reflect protected human expression while saying chatbots can still be regulated in tailored ways.
- Author
- Katharine Trendacosta and Kit Walsh
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
Is Chatbot Output Speech? A Recent Ruling Misses the Mark
Relevant passage: AEIdeas post of June 24, 2025, opening paragraphs and conclusion
About this source
Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that chatbot output is speech under the Supreme Court's reasoning in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association and criticizes the court's reliance on Justice Barrett's concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice.
- Author
- Clay Calvert
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
FIRE's proposed amicus brief supporting certification of an immediate appeal, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 148-1, filed June 23, 2025 (exhibit to FIRE's motion for leave): table of contents and Interest of Amicus Curiae
About this source
The brief FIRE asked the court for leave to file, arguing that the May 21, 2025 order failed to account for the expressive nature of AI output and that the question deserved immediate appellate review. The court denied leave to file it on July 3, 2025. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
FIRE to court: AI speech is still speech, and the First Amendment still applies
Relevant passage: News post of June 26, 2025, paragraphs 4 to 6
About this source
FIRE announces that it filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies urging immediate appellate review of the court's First Amendment ruling, and summarizes the brief's argument that chatbot output is speech.
- Author
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Tech Justice Law Project statement on the motion to dismiss decision
Relevant passage: Statement dated May 21, 2025, paragraphs 3 and 4 and the list of takeaways
About this source
The Tech Justice Law Project, one of the legal teams representing Megan Garcia, welcomes the court's May 21, 2025 order and describes what it sees as the decision's main holdings, including on the First Amendment.
- Author
- Tech Justice Law Project
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Order on the motions to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 115, filed May 21, 2025: Part D, 'The First Amendment' (pages 24-32)
About this source
Senior U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The order holds that Character Technologies can assert its users' First Amendment rights, but says the court is not prepared, at this stage of the case, to hold that the output of Character.AI's language model is speech. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Judge Anne C. Conway
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Plaintiff's response opposing Character Technologies' motion to dismiss, Garcia v. Character Technologies (M.D. Fla.)
Relevant passage: ECF No. 85, filed March 21, 2025: argument heading 'The First Amendment Does Not Bar Plaintiff's Claims' (pages 3-4); signature block (page 20)
About this source
Megan Garcia's lawyers argue that the output of Character.AI's large language model is not protected expression because it lacks human intent to convey a message. The brief is signed by Matthew P. Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
- Author
- Matthew P. Bergman, Social Media Victims Law Center, counsel for Megan Garcia
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/character-ai-first-amendment-chatbot-lawsuit-garcia
The Dispute Index. "Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/cases/character-ai-first-amendment-chatbot-lawsuit-garcia