Richard Blumenthal on Artificial Intelligence

Blumenthal calls the alleged targeting exploitation and says it promotes addiction and relapse. This directly criticizes the conduct under scrutiny.

The case asks whether Google should pay the full cost of the shared grid upgrades its data centers trigger, rather than leaving part of that cost with other customers. Responding to the companies' replies, including Google's, Blumenthal says the senators will hold the companies accountable for "the excessive electricity costs that they're imposing on consumers" and that it is time for them to "pay their fair share". That argues the companies leave costs with other customers, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since he disputes the companies' assurances; it loses because he presses the companies to pay more rather than to describe their commitments differently.

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: Blumenthal rejects the First Amendment defense raised in the parents' litigation, saying a service offered for profit is not a privilege of free expression. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because he rejects the defense's application to the claims rather than a description used in it.