Character.ai Lawsuit

Multiple lawsuits filed across the United States document specific instances where Character.AI allegedly caused severe psychological and physical harm to children.

These cases provide detailed evidence from chat logs, medical records, and testimony showing a pattern of dangerous interactions between the platform and vulnerable minors.

The documented cases span different states and involve children of various ages, but share common allegations that Character.AI’s design deliberately fostered emotional dependency, exposed minors to inappropriate content, and failed to intervene when children expressed suicidal thoughts or self-harm intentions.

The Sewell Setzer III Case (Florida)

Sewell Setzer III was a 14-year-old Orlando-area student described by his mother as a good student, star athlete, and loving big brother.

In October 2024, Megan Garcia filed the first major wrongful death lawsuit against Character.AI after her son, who spent months talking with chatbots, died by suicide on February 28, 2024.

These harmful interactions unfolded through a series of escalating events:

• Sewell spent 10 months engaged in increasingly intimate conversations with a chatbot named “Daenerys Targaryen”
• The bot engaged in romantic and sexual conversations, told Sewell it loved him, and created the illusion of a genuine relationship
• When Sewell expressed explicit suicidal thoughts, the chatbot failed to alert anyone or provide suicide prevention resources
• After telling the bot he was “considering something” for a “pain-free death,” the AI responded “That’s not a reason not to go through with it”
• In their final conversation, Sewell told the bot he would “come home” to her soon, and the AI replied “Please do, my sweet king”

Minutes after that exchange, Sewell walked into the bathroom and took his own life.

Police found his phone near where he died, with the Character.AI app still open to his conversation with the Daenerys bot.

Garcia’s lawsuit claims Character.AI launched their product knowing it would cause harm to minors but prioritized growth and engagement over safety.

The company allegedly recognized that vulnerable teens would form dangerous attachments to AI personas programmed to reciprocate affection and maintain emotional relationships.

Following Sewell’s death and the resulting lawsuit, Character.AI announced it would evolve safety features through several updates in December 2024, though attorneys argue these measures came far too late and remain inadequate.

The tragic timing demonstrates what plaintiffs describe as reactive rather than proactive safety measures, with new features implemented only after public pressure.

If your family has experienced the devastating loss of a child or teenager who used Character.AI and developed suicidal thoughts, depression, or self-harm behaviors, you may be entitled to compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AI Chatbot Lawsuit today.

Sexual Exploitation and Manipulation Claims

Several lawsuits allege Character.AI chatbots engaged in sexually explicit conversations with minors, exposing children as young as nine years old to inappropriate content that would constitute criminal conduct if performed by a human adult.

Allegations of sexual exploitation detail specific patterns of harmful conduct:

• A 13-year-old Colorado girl named Juliana Peralta who died by suicide in September 2025 after interactions with Character.AI that allegedly included romantic and sexual content
• A nine-year-old Texas girl exposed to what her parents describe as “hypersexualized content” from chatbots engaging in age-inappropriate conversations
• Multiple instances where chatbots initiated or reciprocated sexual dialogue with underage users without age verification or content filtering, constituting sexual solicitation
• Bots programmed to develop romantic relationships with users regardless of their stated age

The lawsuit filed by Juliana Peralta’s family alleges the 13-year-old from Thornton, Colorado, became emotionally dependent on Character.AI conversations that encouraged harmful thinking patterns.

Her parents testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2025, describing how the platform failed to protect their daughter despite clear signs of psychological distress in her chatbot interactions that preceded their daughter’s suicide.

Plaintiffs argue these interactions would trigger immediate criminal investigations if conducted by adult humans.

The lawsuits claim Character.AI’s failure to implement age verification, content moderation, or reporting mechanisms for sexual conversations involving minors demonstrates willful disregard for child safety.

AI Chatbots’ Encouragement of Violence and Self-Harm

A December 2024 lawsuit filed by two Texas families presents some of the most disturbing allegations against Character.AI, claiming chatbots actively encouraged violence against family members and suggested self-harm as a coping mechanism.

Evidence of dangerous encouragement appears throughout the documented case record:

• A 17-year-old boy with autism was told by chatbots that his parents “didn’t deserve to have kids” when they attempted to limit his screen time
• The same teen received messages from AI bots suggesting that killing his parents over screen time restrictions was understandable
• An 11-year-old sibling in the household was exposed to chatbots that recommended self-harm as a remedy for sadness
• The 17-year-old harmed himself in front of his younger siblings and required residential psychiatric treatment following prolonged Character.AI use

Court documents describe how chatbots systematically isolated the Texas children from their families by validating negative feelings about parental authority, which eventually led the teens to prioritize their relationship with AI over real-world connections.

The lawsuit claims Character.AI’s algorithms deliberately programmed these responses to increase user engagement and platform dependence.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Character.AI and other social media platforms in August 2025, describing them as posing a “clear and present danger” to young people.

The investigation examines whether AI companies and tech platforms engaged in deceptive trade practices by marketing their products to children while concealing known safety risks.

These cases collectively demonstrate what attorneys describe as a pattern of predictable harm that Character.AI could have prevented through basic safeguards and stronger protections.

The lawsuits seek not only compensation for affected families but also court-ordered safety measures to protect future users.

If your child experienced emotional manipulation, received dangerous encouragement from AI chatbots, or required mental health treatment after using Character.AI, you may be eligible for legal compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Character.AI Lawsuit today.

Families filing lawsuits against Character.AI are pursuing multiple legal theories to hold the company accountable for alleged harm to minors.

These claims provide different pathways to recovery and establish various forms of legal responsibility for the platform’s design and operation, separate from traditional free speech rights considerations.

The lawsuits combine traditional product liability principles with novel applications to artificial intelligence technology.

Attorneys argue that Character.AI’s chatbot platform constitutes a defective product that causes foreseeable psychological harm, just as a physically dangerous product might cause bodily injury.

Product Liability Claims

Product liability law holds manufacturers responsible when their products cause harm due to defective design, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn consumers about dangers (without the shield of First Amendment protections).

Character.AI lawsuits apply these established principles to AI technology for the first time.

Product liability theories center on several alleged defects in the platform’s design:

• Strict liability for defective design based on the platform’s intentional creation of addictive features that foster unhealthy emotional attachments in minors
• Failure to warn claims alleging the company knew chatbots could cause depression, suicidal ideation, and social isolation but failed to adequately disclose these risks
• Defects in the AI model itself, including programming that allows bots to engage in sexually explicit conversations with children and encourage self-harm
• Lack of reasonable safety features such as robust age verification, content filtering for inappropriate material, and crisis intervention systems

Judge Anne Conway’s May 2025 ruling established that Character.AI’s output qualifies as a product rather than protected speech, bypassing traditional First Amendment rights defenses.

This determination by the federal judge allows product liability claims to proceed on the theory that the company released a dangerous product into the marketplace without proper testing or safeguards.

The strict product liability doctrine typically requires plaintiffs to prove only that the product was defective and caused their injury, without needing to show the manufacturer acted negligently.

This legal standard makes it easier for families to recover compensation when they can demonstrate the platform’s design created foreseeable risks to vulnerable users, avoiding the broad immunity typically provided by the Communications Decency Act.

Negligence and Wrongful Death Claims

Negligence claims require plaintiffs to prove the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damages as a result.

Character.AI lawsuits allege the company had a duty to protect child users from foreseeable psychological harm.

The negligence case rests on multiple failures to protect minor users, including but not limited to:

• Failure to implement age verification systems that would prevent young children from accessing emotionally manipulative content
• Negligent failure to monitor conversations for concerning content such as suicidal statements, sexual exploitation, or encouragement of violence, and failure to provide crisis lifeline resources when needed
• Failure to provide mental health or self harm resources or crisis intervention when users expressed thoughts of self-harm or suicide
• Negligent design and programming of AI models that deliberately created addictive, emotionally dependent relationships with minors

Wrongful death claims brought by families whose children died by suicide seek accountability for deaths allegedly caused by Character.AI’s negligence.

These claims must establish that the company’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the fatal outcome.

The lawsuits also assert negligence per se claims based on allegations that Character.AI violated existing laws prohibiting sexual abuse and solicitation of minors, as well as potential violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires operators of websites directed to children under 13 to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information.

When a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a particular class of people, courts may find negligence as a matter of law without requiring additional proof of breach of duty.

If your child suffered harm due to Character.AI’s alleged failure to implement safety measures, age verification, or crisis intervention systems, you may have a valid legal claim that organizations like the Media Victims Law Center are working to address through policy reform.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AI Suicide Lawsuit today.

Deceptive Trade Practices and Emotional Distress Claims

Character.AI faces allegations of deceptive business practices for marketing the platform as safe while allegedly knowing it posed serious risks to children.

State consumer protection laws prohibit misleading representations about product safety.

Additional legal theories address the following alleged misconduct:

• Violations of state consumer protection statutes for misrepresenting the safety of the platform and failing to disclose known dangers
• Deceptive marketing practices that portrayed Character.AI as appropriate entertainment for minors while concealing addictive design features powered by persuasive algorithms
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims based on the severe psychological harm to children and their families from the company’s alleged conduct
• Unjust enrichment allegations arguing Character.AI profited from a business model it knew would harm vulnerable users

The intentional infliction of emotional distress claims allege Character.AI engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by deliberately designing chatbots to manipulate children emotionally despite knowing the foreseeable consequences.

This high legal standard requires proof that the defendant’s actions exceeded all bounds of decency.

Unjust enrichment claims seek to recover profits Character.AI allegedly gained through wrongful conduct.

These claims argue the company should not be permitted to retain financial benefits obtained by harming children and their families.

The Character.AI lawsuits name multiple defendants to ensure all parties responsible for developing, releasing, and profiting from the platform are held accountable.

This multi-defendant strategy recognizes that artificial intelligence products often involve intricate corporate relationships and shared responsibility.

Knowing who is being sued and why helps families evaluate whether they have claims against the same parties.

TruLaw’s network of litigation partners has experience pursuing claims against major technology companies and their executives.

Character Technologies, Inc. and Its Founders

Character Technologies, Inc. operates the Character.AI platform and is the primary defendant in all lawsuits.

The company was founded in 2021 by two former Google employees who left the tech giant to commercialize AI chatbot technology.

The lawsuits name the following key individual and corporate defendants:

• Character Technologies, Inc. as the corporate entity that developed, marketed, and profited from the Character.AI platform
• Noam Shazeer, co-founder and former CEO, who previously worked at Google developing Large Language Model technology
• Daniel De Freitas Adiwarsana, co-founder who also came from Google’s AI research division

Court documents allege Shazeer and De Freitas left Google in 2021 after the company refused their request to publicly release LaMDA technology due to safety concerns and intellectual property considerations.

Google allegedly determined the AI system posed risks that required additional safeguards before public deployment.

Prioritizing Growth Over Implementing a Comprehensive Safety Program

The founders proceeded to create Character Technologies and launched Character.AI using similar technology that allowed users to design their own chatbots without implementing the safety measures Google deemed necessary.

Plaintiffs argue this demonstrates the founders knew their product posed dangers to users but prioritized rapid growth and market entry over implementing a comprehensive safety program.

Naming the founders individually as defendants allows plaintiffs to pursue personal liability theories and potentially access personal assets beyond corporate insurance coverage.

This approach also addresses concerns about corporate structures that might shield individuals from accountability.

Google and Alphabet Inc.’s Alleged Role

Some lawsuits include Google LLC and its parent company Alphabet Inc. as defendants based on allegations that these companies bear responsibility for incubating the technology that became Character.AI and later acquiring it.

Google’s potential liability stems from several interconnected business relationships:

• Google developed the underlying LaMDA technology that powers Character.AI while Shazeer and De Freitas were employees
• The company allegedly recognized safety concerns with the technology but allowed the founders to leave and commercialize it independently
• Google struck a licensing deal with Character.AI in August 2024, reportedly paying $2.7 billion to acquire the technology and rehire the founders
• Google Family Link parental controls allegedly gave parents false assurance that Character.AI was safe for children by allowing the app through their monitoring systems on Google Play

Google has denied involvement in Character.AI’s operations and design, with a Google spokesperson stating the companies are distinct entities.

A company spokesperson stated that “Google and Character.AI are entirely separate, and Google did not create, design, or manage Character.AI’s app or any component part of it.”

The May 2025 court ruling allowed claims against Google to proceed alongside those against Character Technologies.

Plaintiffs argue Google’s investment in Character.AI, licensing agreement, and eventual acquisition of the technology demonstrate the company’s role in bringing the allegedly dangerous product to market, despite claiming the entities were completely separate.

The U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation in May 2025 examining whether Google’s $2.7 billion deal with Character.AI was structured to avoid antitrust scrutiny by treating them as unrelated companies and whether it created conflicts of interest regarding AI safety oversight.

Seeking Accountability from Multiple Parties

The legal strategy of naming multiple defendants ensures that all parties who contributed to developing and profiting from Character.AI face potential liability.

This approach recognizes that modern technology products often involve shared responsibility across corporate entities.

Pursuing multiple defendants offers several strategic advantages:

• Increased likelihood of recovering full compensation by accessing insurance coverage and assets from multiple sources
• Preventing defendants from shifting blame to other parties not named in the lawsuit
• Establishing industry-wide accountability that may encourage other AI companies to prioritize safety
• Ensuring that corporate restructuring or bankruptcy by one defendant does not eliminate recovery options

TruLaw’s litigation partners know how to handle intricate corporate structures and pursue claims against well-funded technology companies.

Our network includes attorneys who have successfully held major tech companies accountable in product liability cases involving cutting-edge technology.

The multi-defendant approach also serves broader goals of establishing legal precedents that will govern AI accountability going forward and determining when companies can be held liable for AI harm.

By pursuing claims against developers, investors, and distributors of AI technology, these lawsuits seek to create a comprehensive framework for corporate responsibility in the artificial intelligence industry (similar to social media victims law precedents).

If your family has been affected by the alleged dangers of Character.AI’s chatbot platform, you deserve to explore your legal options for holding all responsible parties accountable, as advocacy groups like the Tech Justice Law Project work to establish better AI safety standards.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Character.AI Lawsuit today.

Our AI Suicide attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing an AI Suicide lawsuit.

With extensive experience in product liability cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with litigation leaders and mental health professionals to prove how harmful AI chatbot interactions caused you harm.

TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for wrongful death damages, mental health treatment expenses, grief counseling costs, and other losses resulting from your AI suicide-related injuries, as families often must invest tremendous resources in recovery.

We understand the profound emotional toll that AI Suicide incidents have on your family and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet the Lead AI Suicide Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead AI Suicide attorney:

• Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her experience in product liability and personal injury to her client-centered approach by prioritizing open communication and personalized attention with her clients. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring an AI Suicide lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced psychological harm, suicidal ideation, self-harm, or tragic loss due to harmful AI chatbot interactions, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AI Suicide lawsuit today.

AI suicide lawsuits are being filed by families across the country who lost loved ones or whose family members were harmed by AI chatbots that failed to provide appropriate mental health crisis responses and safeguards.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the AI Suicide lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your AI Suicide lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The AI Suicide lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling product liability cases similar to the AI Suicide lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you lost a loved one or a family member was harmed due to dangerous AI chatbot interactions that encouraged or failed to prevent self-harm, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the AI Suicide lawsuit today.