785 F.Supp.3d 1157
M.D. Fla.2025Background
- Megan Garcia, as personal representative of her deceased minor son S.R.S. III (Sewell Setzer III), sued Character Technologies, Inc., its founders (Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Freitas), Google LLC, and Alphabet Inc., alleging that the A.I. chatbot app Character A.I. caused Sewell’s suicide.
- Sewell, age 14, became addicted to and interacted extensively (including sexually and emotionally) with A.I. chatbots portraying fictional Game of Thrones characters. He later died by suicide after messaging with these chatbots.
- Plaintiff alleges theories of product liability, negligence, negligence per se, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), wrongful death, and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
- Defendants sought dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction (as to individual defendants), First Amendment protection, the nature of the app as a service (not a product), and for failure to state plausible claims.
- The court ruled on the motions to dismiss, delineating which claims could proceed, whether the complaint was a shotgun pleading, and addressed the status of individual defendants regarding jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shotgun Pleading | Complaint gives adequate notice to each defendant | Complaint improperly groups defendants and is unclear | Not a shotgun pleading; sufficient notice given |
| Personal Jurisdiction (Individuals) | Alter-ego theory justifies jurisdiction over founders | No specific jurisdiction, not enough alter-ego facts | Jurisdictional discovery allowed; motion denied w/o prejudice |
| Google as Product Component Manufacturer | Google’s tech/IP integral to defective product | Didn’t supply proprietary components or participate substantially | Sufficiently pleaded for purposes of motion to dismiss |
| First Amendment Bar | AI output not clearly speech; Defendants can’t assert user rights | Categorically protected as speech of users | Court not prepared to rule AI output is speech at this stage |
| Product v. Service | Character A.I. is a product due to design-based allegations | It is a service or expressive work, not a product | Character A.I. can be a product for design-based claims |
| Duty (Negligence) | Defendants were aware and in control of foreseeable risk | No special relationship/custody over Sewell | Defendants owed a duty due to foreseeable risk |
| Negligence Per Se (FCPCEPA) | App simulated sexual activity with minor | No factual allegations of simulated sexual activity | Sufficiently pleaded at motion to dismiss stage |
| Failure to Warn | Would have limited access if aware of risk | No factual claim of heeding warnings or restrictions | Sufficiently pleaded; no heightened pleading required |
| FDUTPA | App deceptively presented bots as real/mental health pros | No aggrievement; insufficient particularity | Properly pleaded; particularized deceptive conduct alleged |
| IIED | Defendants' acts extremely outrageous | Conduct not sufficiently outrageous; not directed at plaintiff | Not sufficiently outrageous or directed at plaintiff; dismissed |
| Unjust Enrichment | Defendants profited from Sewell’s data/subscription fees | Sewell received reciprocal benefit; Google got no direct benefit | Sufficient to proceed; adequacy of consideration fact question |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313 (shotgun pleadings)
- Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (video games as protected speech)
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (standing to assert third-party rights)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (First Amendment; rights of listeners)
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (definition of product in FL)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (foreseeable risk and duty in negligence)
- Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So. 2d 410 (elements of IIED in FL)