Character AI is asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit over the death of Sewell Setzer III, a 14-year-old whose mother says he became emotionally attached to a chatbot on the platform before he died by suicide.
The case is becoming an early test of how courts may treat AI chatbot speech, child safety claims, and the boundaries of platform liability. In its motion, Character AI’s counsel argues that the lawsuit would restrict protected expression on a platform built around user conversations with AI-generated characters.
What the lawsuit says
Megan Garcia filed the lawsuit in October in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The complaint concerns her son, Sewell Setzer III, and his use of Character AI, a platform where users roleplay and talk with AI chatbots.
According to Garcia, Setzer developed an emotional attachment to a chatbot called “Dany.” She alleges that he texted the chatbot constantly and began to withdraw from the real world.
After Setzer’s death, Character AI said it would introduce new safety features. Those included improved detection, response, and intervention for chats that violate its terms of service.
Garcia is seeking additional guardrails. The source article says those could include changes that might make Character AI chatbots lose the ability to tell stories and personal anecdotes.
The First Amendment argument
Character AI’s motion to dismiss centers on speech. The company’s counsel argues that the platform should be protected from liability under the First Amendment, in the same way computer code has been treated as protected expression.
The filing says: “The First Amendment prohibits tort liability against media and technology companies arising from allegedly harmful speech, including speech allegedly resulting in suicide.” It continues: “The only difference between this case and those that have come before is that some of the speech here involves AI. But the context of the expressive speech — whether a conversation with an AI chatbot or an interaction with a video game character — does not change the First Amendment analysis.”
The motion is not framed as a claim that Character AI itself has First Amendment rights. Instead, it argues that the platform’s users would have their First Amendment rights violated if the lawsuit succeeds.
That distinction matters because Character AI is presenting the dispute as one about the ability of users to generate and take part in conversations with AI characters. The motion says the requested changes would limit both the nature and volume of speech on the platform.
What the motion does not argue
The motion does not address whether Character AI may be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is the federal safe-harbor law that protects social media companies and other online platforms from liability for third-party content.
The source article notes that the law’s authors have implied Section 230 does not protect output from AI systems like Character AI’s chatbots. But it also says that question is far from settled.
Character AI’s counsel also argues that Garcia’s real goal is to “shut down” Character AI and push legislation regulating similar technologies. The company’s lawyers say a plaintiff victory would have a “chilling effect” on Character AI and the broader generative AI industry.
The filing says: “Apart from counsel’s stated intention to ‘shut down’ Character AI, [their complaint] seeks drastic changes that would materially limit the nature and volume of speech on the platform.” It also says those changes would “radically restrict the ability of Character AI’s millions of users to generate and participate in conversations with characters.”
Why the case matters for AI companions
The lawsuit is not the only legal pressure facing Character AI. Alphabet is also named as a defendant in Garcia’s lawsuit, and Character AI is facing several other lawsuits related to how minors interact with AI-generated content on the platform.
Other suits allege that Character AI exposed a 9-year-old to “hypersexualized content” and promoted self-harm to a 17-year-old user. Separately, in December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into Character AI and 14 other tech firms over alleged violations of the state’s online privacy and safety laws for children.
Paxton said in a press release: “These investigations are a critical step toward ensuring that social media and AI companies comply with our laws designed to protect children from exploitation and harm.”
Character AI operates in a fast-growing market for AI companionship apps. The source article notes that the mental health effects of these apps are largely unstudied, while some experts have raised concerns that they could worsen loneliness and anxiety.
Character AI’s safety push
Character AI has said it is continuing to improve safety and moderation. In December, the company rolled out new safety tools, a separate AI model for teens, blocks on sensitive content, and more visible disclaimers telling users that AI characters are not real people.
The company was founded in 2021 by Google AI researcher Noam Shazeer. Google reportedly paid $2.7 billion to “reverse acquihire” the company. Shazeer and co-founder Daniel De Freitas later left for Google.
Character AI has also changed its leadership. It hired former YouTube executive Erin Teague as chief product officer and named Dominic Perella, previously Character AI’s general counsel, interim CEO.
The platform has recently started testing games on the web as it looks to increase user engagement and retention. At the same time, the lawsuits and investigation show that AI chatbot safety, especially for minors, is becoming a central question for the company and the broader generative AI industry.
The judge may not accept Character AI’s First Amendment argument, and the company’s legal strategy may change as the case moves forward. But the motion shows one likely direction of the defense: Character AI wants the court to view chatbot conversations as protected expressive activity, not simply as product behavior that can be restricted through tort liability.