The Character.AI app can be considered a product in a products liability claim alleging the company caused a teenager's suicide. The claim arises from defects in the app, "rather than ideas or expressions within the app," a judge said. (Photo by Idrees Abbas / SOPA Images/Sipa USA) (Sipa via AP Images)
The suit alleges the Character.AI app was designed to manipulate users like Setzer with disturbingly realistic experiences in which the program "misrepresents itself as a real person" and even a lover, according to the complaint. The teen began using Character.AI shortly after he turned 14 in April 2023, and his mental health severely declined soon after, the suit said.
Judge Conway determined Wednesday that even though Setzer's interactions with the characters generated by Character.AI allegedly caused him harm, "these harmful interactions were only possible because of the alleged design defects in the Character A.I. app."
"Accordingly, Character A.I. is a product for the purposes of plaintiff's product liability claims so far as plaintiff's claims arise from defects in the Character A.I. app rather than ideas or expressions within the app," the order said.
The judge also held that Garcia properly alleged the companies owed a duty of care to lessen the risk of harm or implement sufficient safety precautions.
"Plaintiff's amended complaint is replete with allegations that defendants were aware of the inherent risks of harm associated with Character A.I.," the order said. "Defendants, by releasing Character A.I. to the public, created a foreseeable risk of harm for which defendants were in a position to control."
In addition, the court determined there was sufficient evidence showing Google substantially contributed to the development and operation of Character.AI, as one of the key technologies behind the app, large language models, was developed at Google when Shazeer and De Freitas worked there as engineers.
"Plaintiff emphasizes that Google partnered with Character Technologies, granting Character Technologies access to Google Cloud's technical infrastructure," the order said. "This considerable level of involvement in Character Technologies' LLM which Google is alleged to have had supports plaintiff's theory that Google substantially participated in integrating its models into Character A.I."
The only claim that didn't survive the defendants' motions to dismiss was a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judge held that it didn't pass muster because Garcia didn't properly allege outrageous conduct by the defendants.
A spokesperson for Google told Law360 on Wednesday that the company strongly disagrees with the ruling.
"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," the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
An attorney for Garcia, Matt Bergman, told Law360 that the decision was significant because the trial court held that Google could be sued for developing the underlying technology used by the app.
"It's historic that Google can be liable for being a component parts manufacturer for supplying the digital infrastructure that powered Character.AI," he said. "We realize that we have a long road ahead and that the court did not pick winners or losers but simply said we get to move forward."
Counsel for the other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Garcia is represented by Matthew P. Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, Amy Judkins of Newsome Melton PA and Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project.
Google is represented by Fred A. Rowley Jr. and Matthew K. Donohue of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC and Jay Shapiro of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson PA.
Character is represented by Jonathan H. Blavin and Stephanie Goldfarb Herrera of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Thomas A. Zehnder and Dustin Mauser-Claassen of King Blackwell Zehnder & Wermuth PA.
Shazeer is represented by Isaac Chaput of Covington & Burling LLP.
De Freitas is represented by Andrew H. Schapiro and Olivia Yeffet of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.
The case is Megan Garcia v. Character Technologies Inc. et al., case number 6:24-cv-01903, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
--Additional reporting by Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Drashti Mehta.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
