Garcia's lawyers say chatbot output lacks the human intent speech requires
Social Media Victims Law CenterLaw firm representing plaintiff Megan Garcia, in a brief signed by its founder, Matthew P. Bergman
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.
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.
“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.”
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
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).
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The brief opens its argument by quoting Character.AI's claim that the suit would impose liability for expressive content.
After the quotation
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.
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. 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.
- 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
- Garcia's lawyers say chatbot output lacks the human intent speech requires
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5721-the-social-media-victims-law-center-representing-megan
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Garcia's lawyers say chatbot output lacks the human intent speech requires". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5721-the-social-media-victims-law-center-representing-megan