Character.AI says the First Amendment bars the claims
Character.AIDefendant, in its motion to dismiss filed through counsel
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.
Responding 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.
“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.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide
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.
Source and context
Original text
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).
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The motion opens by extending sympathy to the plaintiff over her son's death before setting out its legal argument.
After the quotation
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.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEFF says chatbot output can be protected expression but harms can be addressed
Electronic Frontier Foundation
“Far from being the speech of a robot, chatbot output often reflects human expression that is entitled to First Amendment protection. ... None of this is to suggest that chatbots cannot be regulated or that the harms they cause cannot be addressed. The First Amendment simply requires that those regulations be appropriately tailored to the harm to avoid unduly burdening the right to express oneself through the medium of a chatbot, or to receive the information it provides.”Read statement
FIRE says chatbot output is speech and urges an immediate appeal
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
“Contrary to the court’s uncertainty about whether “words strung together by an LLM” are speech, assembling words to convey messages and information is the essence of speech. ... If it is not speech, plaintiffs will be able to impose liability for the distribution of ideas in a way that courts have steadfastly rejected for other forms of media.”Read statement
Clay Calvert says chatbot output is speech
“The fact that users’ inputs influence speech produced by chatbots doesn’t change the fact that chatbot output is speech. ... It would be a mistake for Conway to conclude that Garcia doesn’t involve speech.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Character.AI says the First Amendment bars the claims
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5720-character-ai-argues-that-the-lawsuit-would-impose
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Character.AI says the First Amendment bars the claims". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5720-character-ai-argues-that-the-lawsuit-would-impose