What happened

  • Megan Garcia sued on October 22, 2024, individually and as personal representative of her son's estate. The defendants in the order are Character Technologies, Inc., two individual founders, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. The suit concerns a minor's death, and this brief keeps to the court's legal rulings.
  • The amended complaint alleges product liability, negligence, wrongful death, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Its design allegations include that Character.AI does not confirm users' ages, has no reporting mechanism and has Characters programmed with human mannerisms.
  • The founders previously worked at Google on language models, and Google argued it did not make or distribute Character.AI and that its role was that of an investor and service provider.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss (Dkt. 11, 59, 61, 63, 65). Their main arguments were that the First Amendment bars the claims and that Character.AI is not a product. The court heard argument on April 28, 2025. At that hearing the plaintiff said she wished to dismiss Alphabet Inc. without prejudice.

What the court said

  • First Amendment: the court held that Character Technologies can assert its users' First Amendment right to receive the chatbot's output. It also wrote that it was not prepared to hold that Character.AI's output is speech: "the Court is not prepared to hold that Character A.I.'s output is speech."
  • Product: the court held Character.AI is a product for product liability purposes so far as the claims arise from defects in the app rather than ideas or expressions within it.
  • Duty and claims: the court found a duty was sufficiently alleged for negligence, and that the plaintiff stated claims including FDUTPA and unjust enrichment. The order says the claims survive at the pleading stage, accepting the complaint's facts as true.
  • Google: the court found the plaintiff sufficiently alleged Google could be liable as a component part manufacturer and for aiding and abetting.
  • Dismissed: the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed without leave to amend, and the claims against Alphabet Inc. were dismissed without prejudice.
  • Individual defendants: their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were denied, with leave to refile 90 days after the order to allow jurisdictional discovery. Answers to the amended complaint were due June 10, 2025.

What it means for your firm

  • Our reading: the order does not find the defendants liable. It decides that the claims may be tested in discovery and that, for now, a chatbot's output is not shielded as speech and the app can be a product.
  • The "product, not speech" reasoning tracks design choices such as age checks, reporting tools and human-like personas. A client that ships a consumer chatbot should review those features with counsel.
  • The Google ruling shows how a vendor, investor or platform partner can be pleaded into a case. Contracts that allocate risk with AI vendors deserve a second read.
  • Minors and mental-health content raise the stakes for any client product used by young people, and for firms advising them.
  • Nothing here is legal advice, and a pleading-stage order from one federal district court is not controlling elsewhere.

What to do Monday

  1. List client AI products that talk with consumers, and note which can reach minors or discuss health or crisis topics.
  2. For each, document age assurance, content filters, crisis-response handling and a reporting channel, and flag gaps for the product team.
  3. Review vendor and partner agreements for indemnity, data-sharing and model-supply terms that could expose your client in a product liability claim.
  4. Read the live docket for No. 6:24-cv-1903 before you cite the case beyond the May 21, 2025 order.

Sources

Questions and answers

Is Character.AI being sued over a teenager's death?

Yes. Megan Garcia sued Character Technologies, its founders and Google in the Middle District of Florida on October 22, 2024. On May 21, 2025 the court let most claims proceed and dismissed one claim and Alphabet Inc.

Did the court rule that chatbot output is not free speech?

Not finally. At the motion to dismiss stage the court wrote that it was "not prepared to hold" that Character.AI's output is speech, so the First Amendment did not end the case at that point.

What is the status of the case now?

Not verified. We read the May 21, 2025 order and the complaint, not the later docket. Check the live docket for later rulings, appeals or settlement.

Operational information, not legal advice. Facts come from the filings on the court docket linked under Sources, read on Oct 31, 2026. A docket moves: this brief covers only the filings we read and does not replace the live docket. The reading of what it means for your firm is ours.