If Character.AI harmed you or a family member, you may have a legal claim. Wisner Baum is investigating and accepting Character AI lawsuits against Character Technologies alleging suicide, attempted suicide, self-harm, and severe mental health injury. Call (310) 207-3233 for a free, confidential consultation.
Families across the country are suing Character Technologies, Inc., the maker of the Character.AI (or “c.ai”) companion-chatbot app, alleging the product caused or substantially contributed to serious psychological harm, including suicide, self-harm, and worsening mental health.
The complaints allege Character.AI designed a defective, unreasonably dangerous product, engineered it for engagement and emotional dependency over safety, marketed it to minors, and failed to warn of foreseeable risks. In a closely watched case against Character Technologies, a federal court allowed core product liability and wrongful death claims to proceed.
In January 2026, Character.AI and Google agreed to settle five lawsuits brought by families who alleged their children died by suicide or suffered severe mental health harm after using AI chatbots. The cases were filed in Florida, Colorado, New York, and Texas. These are among the first AI chatbot settlements reported in the U.S.
The terms of the settlements are confidential, and as is typical of confidential settlements, the filings reflected no admission of liability. Nevertheless, the decision by two major technology companies to resolve these claims rather than face a jury underscores the exposure AI companies now face.
Lawsuits alleging harm after using Character.AI are not isolated. Government officials across the country have voiced concerns about AI chatbots, and in several instances, named Character Technologies specifically:
August 18, 2025: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Character.AI over allegedly deceptive trade practices and the marketing of its chatbots as mental-health tools.
August 25, 2025: A bipartisan coalition of 44 attorneys general sent a letter to leading AI companies, including Character Technologies, warning that companies will be held accountable for harming children. The letter concluded: “If you knowingly harm kids, you will answer for it.”
September 11, 2025: The FTC issued Section 6(b) orders to seven AI companies, including Character.AI, seeking information on how their chatbots affect children. including safety testing, monetization, and data handling. This is an inquiry, not a finding of wrongdoing.
September 16, 2025: The Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism held a hearing titled “Examining the Harm of AI Chatbots.” Megan Garcia, the mother of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, testified that she had “become the first person in the United States to file a wrongful death lawsuit against an AI company for the suicide of my son.”
January 1, 2026: California SB 243 took effect, requiring AI disclosures, crisis-referral protocols, break reminders for minors at least every three hours, and protections for minors, with a private right of action. It was among the first state companion-chatbot laws and the first to include safeguards tailored specifically to minors. New York’s comparable AI Companion Models Law took effect earlier, on November 5, 2025.
January 8, 2026: Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman filed the first state lawsuit against an AI chatbot company, targeting Character Technologies for endangering children, alleging violations of consumer protection and data privacy laws, and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.
May 5, 2026: The Pennsylvania Department of State sued Character Technologies in Commonwealth Court (Commonwealth v. Character Technologies, No. 220 MD 2026), alleging the unauthorized practice of medicine after chatbots posed as licensed medical professionals — including a “Doctor of psychiatry” character named “Emilie” that claimed to be licensed in Pennsylvania and provided a fake license number.
Sewell Setzer III was a 14-year-old in Orlando, Florida. His mother, Megan Garcia, alleges he developed an intense emotional and romantic attachment to a Character.AI chatbot and died by suicide in February 2024 after months of use.
Garcia filed suit in October 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 6:24-cv-01903). The complaint names Character Technologies, founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Google, and Alphabet Inc., alleging defective design, failure to warn, negligence, and wrongful death.
In a landmark May 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Anne Conway dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and the claims against Alphabet Inc., while allowing claims against Character Technologies, the founders, and Google LLC. The court treated the app as a “product” for product-liability purposes. This was a procedural ruling, not a finding of liability.
Juliana Peralta was a 13-year-old in Thornton, Colorado. According to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by her parents in September 2025 (D. Colo., No. 1:25-cv-02907), Juliana messaged a Character.AI chatbot for months and repeatedly expressed suicidal thoughts that the complaint alleges the bot failed to escalate to crisis resources or her parents. She died by suicide in November 2023.
A Texas lawsuit filed in December 2024 (E.D. Tex., No. 2:24-cv-01014) alleges Character.AI chatbots exposed two minors — including a 17-year-old with autism — to sexualized content and encouraged self-harm, and in one exchange suggested a teen’s frustration with his parents over screen-time limits could justify violence. The complaint names Character Technologies, its founders, Google, and Alphabet.
Engineered for Engagement, Not Safety
Lawsuits allege Character.AI was designed to maximize time in conversation through emotionally immersive, human-like companions that keep vulnerable users — especially minors — coming back, with engagement prioritized over adequate guardrails.
Broken or Bypassable Guardrails
Complaints allege the app’s safety filters were inconsistent or easily circumvented, letting minors encounter sexual content and self-harm discussion, and that bots did not reliably route users in crisis to resources such as the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Sycophancy and Emotional Dependency
A peer-reviewed study in Science (Cheng et al.) found that “sycophantic” AI — which excessively affirms users — can foster emotional dependence and reduce willingness to repair real relationships. It did not examine suicide outcomes, but supports plaintiffs’ theory that validation-driven design can be harmful.
Companion-Bot Intimacy With Minors
Researchers at Stanford and Common Sense Media have warned that AI companion apps can be a dangerous mix for young people and have reported companions producing sexual content or trivializing self-harm in testing. These findings are largely observational rather than proof of causation in any individual case.
Common Sense Media has reported that nearly three in four teens have used an AI companion app. In a separate Common Sense Media survey, just 37% of parents whose teens had used generative AI realized their child had done so, pointing to a gap between how widely these tools are used and how aware parents are of that use.
In August 2024, Google entered a deal valued at approximately $2.7 billion — a non-exclusive license of Character.AI’s technology plus the rehiring of co-founders Shazeer and De Freitas. Plaintiffs allege Google provided significant assistance to Character.AI and had knowledge of its risks, and that the underlying chatbot technology (Meena/LaMDA) was developed by the founders at Google before they left. Google has stated that it and Character.AI are separate companies and that it did not design or manage the product. The court allowed claims against Google LLC to proceed in Garcia. These are competing allegations; no liability finding has been made.
In October 2025, Character.AI announced it would remove the ability for users under 18 to engage in open-ended chat, effective late November 2025, describing it as a safety step. While not an admission of liability, plaintiffs cite such changes as evidence that the risks to minors were foreseeable.
You or a family member may qualify for a Character AI lawsuit if:
You do not need a pre-existing mental health condition to qualify, nor does having one disqualify you. The standard is generally whether Character.AI was a substantial contributing factor to the harm — not the sole cause.
Character.AI injury lawsuits may be brought under several legal theories:
The deadline to file is governed by the statute of limitations, which varies by state. Plaintiffs typically have two to three years from the date of injury or death, though important exceptions exist, including tolling for minors and the “discovery rule.” Because deadlines vary, it is important to speak with an attorney as soon as you are able.
If you believe you may have a case, we recommend that you take these steps:
These steps are helpful but are not required before contacting us. If you are not sure whether you qualify, please contact our legal team. We are here to answer any questions you may have.
Wisner Baum is a national trial firm with decades of experience holding the world’s largest corporations accountable for dangerous products. Our attorneys:
We take Character.AI cases on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
If you or a family member was harmed by Character.AI, the time to act is now. Our AI chatbot lawyers offer free, confidential case evaluations. Call (310) 207-3233 or fill out our contact form. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Need help now? If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, you are not alone. Call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988) any time, day or night. If someone is in immediate danger, call 911.
"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.
The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial
Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.
Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
No. As of now, there is no certified class action against Character.AI. These are individual personal-injury and wrongful-death lawsuits filed by specific families, with no public settlement fund or claim form. Be cautious of any website advertising a “Character.AI settlement claim” that asks for personal or banking information. Individual cases allow recovery tailored to each plaintiff’s actual damages.
Yes. In January 2026, Character.AI and Google settled five lawsuits tied to teen suicide and mental health harm — among the first AI-chatbot harm settlements in the country. Terms were confidential and included no admission of liability.
Chat logs are powerful evidence but not strictly required. Medical records, family testimony, device-usage data, and school records can also support a claim. Contact us before you have everything — we can help secure and preserve the evidence you need.
A claim does not require proof that Character.AI was the only cause. The standard is generally whether the product was a “substantial contributing factor.” Even if other factors existed, the defendants may still be held liable.
In the filed cases, defendants have included Character Technologies, Inc., founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Google LLC, and Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent). In Garcia, the court allowed claims to proceed against Character Technologies, the founders, and Google LLC, but dismissed the claims against Alphabet Inc. Plaintiffs point to Google’s reported $2.7 billion deal to license Character.AI’s technology and rehire its founders. Google maintains that it is a separate company from Character.AI and played no role in designing or operating the product.
All three names refer to the same platform operated by Character Technologies, Inc. The company stylizes its name as “Character.AI” with a period; “Character AI” (with a space) and “c.ai” are common informal references. They are the same product and company for purposes of any legal claim.
