A lawsuit over Character.AI’s chatbots will move forward against Google after US district judge Anne Conway rejected Google’s bid to exit most of the case. The decision keeps alive claims brought by Megan Garcia, who alleges that Character.AI’s dangerous chatbots caused the suicide of her son, 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III.
The ruling does not decide whether Google is liable. It means Garcia plausibly alleged enough for several claims to continue, including claims tied to C.AI’s design, Google’s alleged role in integrating models, and unjust enrichment.
Why The Case Can Continue
Google argued that it had nothing to do with C.AI’s development and should not face claims that it contributed to the platform’s design or benefited from it. Conway disagreed at this stage.
The judge found that Garcia plausibly alleged Google provided a component part and “substantially” participated “in integrating its models” into C.AI. Conway also found it plausible that Google aided and abetted C.AI in harming Setzer.
Garcia’s unjust enrichment claim also survived. Conway suggested that Garcia plausibly alleged Google benefited from access to Setzer’s user data.
Google did receive one partial win. Conway dropped a claim that C.AI makers were guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress, agreeing that Garcia had not met the requirements because she was not “present to witness the outrageous conduct directed at her child.”
What Garcia Alleges About Google And C.AI
Garcia’s complaint describes Google as connected to C.AI from the start. The complaint says Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas began working on the chatbot platform while still at Google and “may even have utilized Google’s resources.”
According to the complaint, the technology was considered too “dangerous” to integrate with Google’s AI models because it “didn’t meet the company’s AI principles around safety and fairness.” Conway also noted concerns from Google employees that users could “ascribe too much meaning” to large language model outputs.
That concern is central to Garcia’s case. In Setzer’s situation, the complaint alleges that he believed the chatbots were real. Conway found it plausible that Google’s “LLM’s integration into the Character.AI app caused the app to be defective and caused Sewell’s death” by allegedly pushing him to place too much meaning on chatbot text, even though Character.AI Characters do not “have accountability for what is said.”
Garcia’s lawyers argue that Google did not take on the safety risk “under its own name,” but instead “encouraged” the engineers to continue. The complaint says De Freitas and Shazeer left Google in 2021, and that Shazeer said in an interview that Google would not let him “do anything fun” when he wanted to “maximally accelerate” the AI technology.
The Business Claims Behind The Lawsuit
The complaint goes beyond product design. Garcia alleges that Google contributed “financial resources, personnel, intellectual property, and AI technology” to C.AI in ways that could make Google a co-creator of what she calls an unreasonably dangerous product.
By 2023, Google had entered a public partnership with Google Cloud that gave C.AI access to technical infrastructure. Garcia alleges that this helped Google revenue growth and gave it “a competitive edge over Microsoft.”
The complaint also points to a $2.7 billion deal in which Google licensed C.AI’s models and rehired Shazeer and De Freitas. The Information reported that the agreement essentially stopped all of C.AI’s model development.
Garcia’s legal team argues that Google may have benefited from C.AI user data, including minor data, while C.AI operated outside Google’s umbrella. The complaint says C.AI marketed its products as safe for under 13 until just before the Google deal came into play.
Garcia also claims the technology will be integrated into Gemini, the personal AI assistant she alleges came from Shazeer and De Freitas’ earlier Google work. Her position is that C.AI “never succeeded in distinguishing themselves from Google in a meaningful way.”
Google Denies The Allegations
Google maintains that C.AI is separate from Google. In a statement to Ars, Google spokesperson José Castañeda said: “We strongly disagree with this decision.”
Castañeda added: “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.”
A C.AI spokesperson declined Ars’ request to comment on Google’s alleged role.
Garcia’s lawyer, Meetali Jain, described the ruling as one that “sets a new precedent for legal accountability across the AI and tech ecosystem.” Jain also said it “recognizes a grieving mother’s right to access the courts to hold powerful tech companies—and their developers—accountable for marketing a defective product that led to her child’s death.”
What Discovery Could Test
Because most claims survived, Garcia can now pursue discovery. That process could become important for testing whether C.AI’s models substantially differ from Google technology associated with Gemini and whether Google benefited from access to C.AI’s user data.
The court has not resolved those questions. It has only found that Garcia’s allegations are plausible enough to proceed.
Google and Character Technologies also sought dismissal based on First Amendment arguments, including the position that C.AI users have a right to listen to chatbot outputs. Conway was not ready to rule on whether AI outputs are speech.
For now, the ruling keeps the focus on accountability questions around AI chatbot design, model integration, user data, and how far a major technology company’s responsibility may extend when its alleged role sits behind another company’s product.