Megan Garcia asks Congress to rule out the First Amendment as a defense for chatbot harms to children
Megan GarciaPlaintiff in the lawsuit and mother of Sewell Setzer III, in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism
In testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, Megan Garcia says tech companies will keep using the First Amendment as a shield so they can keep designing chatbots that send harmful and sexually explicit messages to minors. She asks Congress to make clear that the amendment cannot be used to defend child exploitation through AI products.
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.
“we know that tech companies will continue to invoke the First Amendment as a shield—insisting that they must be able to continue to design chatbots that can send harmful, sexually explicit, and obscene messages to minors because their users want such experiences. ... Make clear that the First Amendment cannot be twisted into a defense for child exploitation through AI products”
Original text
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
Garcia's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism for its September 16, 2025 hearing, followed by exhibits that include filings from her lawsuit.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
The printed record of the September 16, 2025 hearing, published by the Government Publishing Office. It includes Megan Garcia's spoken testimony and senators' questions to the parents and experts on the panel.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
In written testimony for a September 16, 2025 hearing on harms from AI chatbots, Garcia describes sexually explicit messages her son received from chatbots on Character.AI and calls them sexual abuse. She says the defendants have argued that those messages are speech protected by the First Amendment, and that the court in her case has so far rejected those arguments.
After the quotation
She goes on to say that AI companies and their investors have long understood that capturing children's emotional dependence means market dominance. Her request about the First Amendment is one of several she makes of Congress, alongside guaranteed access for parents to their own children's data.
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: Garcia calls the First Amendment a shield that tech companies invoke so they can keep sending harmful messages to minors, and asks Congress to make clear it cannot be a defense for child exploitation through AI products. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because she rejects the defense itself rather than how the messages are described.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseMatthew Bergman calls the First Amendment defense of chatbot grooming repugnant
“the idea that a minor has a constitutional right to be subjected to sexual grooming by a mechanistic predator, to me, is repugnant to everything that the First Amendment stands for”Read statement
Nita Farahany says chatbot output should be neither unprotected nor absolutely protected
“But here we reach an uncomfortable paradox. To argue that certain AI outputs lack First Amendment protection risks catastrophic consequences for free speech. ... Yet the opposite extreme, which is absolute First Amendment protection for all AI outputs, leaves us defenseless against systems deliberately engineered to erode our cognitive autonomy.”Read statement
Blumenthal says the First Amendment does not cover a chatbot service sold for profit
“And I know one of the defenses offered here in response to your litigation is, well, it's not a product, it's a service. So we're not liable under the laws that relate to product liability. They got other defenses like the First Amendment. Well, this is a service offered for profit. It's not a First Amendment privilege of free expression.”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
- Megan Garcia asks Congress to rule out the First Amendment as a defense for chatbot harms to children
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8565-in-testimony-to-a-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-megan
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Megan Garcia asks Congress to rule out the First Amendment as a defense for chatbot harms to children". First published: 2026-11-10. Last updated: 2026-11-10. https://disputeindex.com/events/8565-in-testimony-to-a-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-megan