New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
The parents of two Texas children recently brought a lawsuit against Character Technologies, Inc., alleging that its chatbot, Character.AI, encouraged self-harm, violence, and provided sexual content to their children. They are requesting that the court shut down the platform until the alleged dangers have been resolved. The suit, brought on behalf of the children, aged 17 and 11, was filed by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project. In addition to Character Technologies, Inc., the lawsuit names its two founders, as well as Google and Alphabet Inc. (collectively, Google).
Character.AI is a chatbot, similar to those offered by other artificial intelligence (AI) developers. Where it differs, however, is that it allows customers to chat with a variety of pre-trained AI agents or “characters.” These characters can be representations of celebrities, fictional characters, or custom characters made by a customer. Despite the customer’s creation of specific characters, the customer retains very little, if any, control over a created character. The plaintiffs allege that Character.AI retains complete control over the large language model (LLM) itself, as well as the characters and how they operate.
Interactions between Character.AI “characters” and two Texas minors ultimately led to this lawsuit. The first user, “J.F.,” is a 17-year-old with high-functioning autism, who began using the platform in April 2023, when he was 15. The complaint alleges that, due to his engagement with Character.AI, J.F. began isolating himself, losing weight, having panic attacks when he tried to leave his home, and became violent with his parents when they attempted to reduce his screen time. Included in the complaint is a screenshot of a conversation between J.F. and a Character.AI chatbot in which the bot encouraged J.F. to push back on a reduction in screen time and suggested that killing his parents may be a reasonable solution.
The second user, “B.R.,” is an 11-year-old girl. The complaint alleges that she downloaded Character.AI when she was 9 years old and that she was consistently exposed to hypersexualized interactions that were not age appropriate, causing her to develop sexualized behaviors prematurely and without her parents’ awareness.
The lawsuit follows shortly on the heels of another high-profile incident in which a Character.AI chatbot that infringed a well-known fictional character allegedly encouraged a 14-year-old boy to commit suicide.
The crux of the plaintiffs’ allegations is that, through its design, Character.AI is “causing serious harms to thousands of kids, including suicide, self-mutilation, sexual solicitation, isolation, depression, anxiety, and harm towards others.” They further allege that, through deceptive and addictive designs, Character.AI isolates kids from their families and communities, undermines parental authority, and thwarts parents’ efforts to restrict kids’ online activity and keep them safe.
Much of the complaint is premised on allegations that the AI software suffers from design defects and that the defendants have failed to warn consumers of the alleged dangers, harms, or injuries that may exist when the product is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, particularly by children. The plaintiffs are also seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, they assert that the defendants’ failure to implement sufficient safety measures in the software before launching it into the market and targeting minors was intentional and reckless.
Two additional claims are directed against only Character.AI. The first is that by collecting and sharing personal information about children under the age of 13 without obtaining parental consent, Character.AI has violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The second alleges that Character.AI failed to meet its obligations to comply with applicable law governing harmful communication with minors and sexual solicitation of minors. Specifically, it is alleged that Character.AI failed to meet these obligations by knowingly designing Character.AI as a “sexualized product that would deceive minor customers and engage in explicit and abusive acts with them.”
As a defendant, Google is a noteworthy addition to this case. The specific claims asserted against Google include strict product liability and negligence for defective design, strict liability and negligence for failure to warn, aiding and abetting, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Google’s inclusion stems from the allegation that it incubated the technology behind Character.AI. Character.AI was founded by Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Feitas, former Google engineers. Both men left Google to launch Character.AI before being rehired in a reportedly $2.7 billion deal intended to purchase shares of the startup and fund its continued operations. The complaint alleges that product development for Character.AI began when both men were still employed by Google, but that the founders faced significant internal roadblocks for failing to comply with Google’s AI policies. Based on this past and continuing relationship, the plaintiffs allege that Character.AI was rushed to market with Google’s knowledge, participation, and financial support.
The plaintiffs are requesting that Character.AI be taken offline and not returned until the defendants can establish that the public health and safety defects alleged have been cured. In addition to being taken offline, the plaintiffs are seeking various monetary damages, an order that would require Character.AI to warn parents and minors that the product is not suitable for minors, and requirements that the platform limit the collection and processing of minors’ data.
This case highlights the importance of implementing robust safety measures in AI platforms, especially where they are easily accessible to and highly desirable by minors. Companies utilizing AI chatbots, non-playable characters, virtual assistants, or other similar products or services should carefully review their quality assurance programs, safety standards, data collection practices, and intellectual property policies to consider whether they have adequate safeguards in place to mitigate potential harm and ensure compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.
More Upcoming Events
 
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
 
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317.  If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC

source