EFF says chatbot output can be protected expression but harms can be addressed
Electronic Frontier FoundationDigital rights group, describing the amicus brief it prepared with the Center for Democracy and Technology
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says chatbot output often reflects human expression entitled to First Amendment protection, while saying chatbots can still be regulated and their harms addressed through rules tailored to the harm.
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.
“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.”
Official statement
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
Official statement
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
EFF says people tend to see a chatbot as a speaking robot, which can lead judges to overlook the human expressive choices connected to its output.
After the quotation
EFF says it hopes its brief helps the court as the case continues. The court had denied EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology leave to file that brief on July 3, 2025.
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. Mixed or conditional: EFF supports First Amendment protection for chatbot output but expressly says chatbot harms can be addressed if the rules are tailored to the harm, so it does not endorse a categorical bar on the claims. The closest competing label is Defended or excused; it loses because EFF does not argue that the claims in this case are barred.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseFIRE 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
Tech Justice Law Project welcomes the court's First Amendment ruling
Tech Justice Law Project
“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.”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
- EFF says chatbot output can be protected expression but harms can be addressed
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5725-the-electronic-frontier-foundation-says-chatbot-output-often
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "EFF says chatbot output can be protected expression but harms can be addressed". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5725-the-electronic-frontier-foundation-says-chatbot-output-often