Google, chatbot maker Character to settle suit alleging bot pushed teen to suicide

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Google and artificial intelligence chatbot maker Character Technologies have agreed to settle the lawsuit of a Florida mother who alleged a chatbot drove her teenage son to commit suicide.

Lawyers for the two tech companies also agreed to settle several other lawsuits filed in Colorado, New York and Texas by families who alleged that Character.AI chatbots harmed their children, according to court documents filed this week in federal courts in those states.

None of the documents disclose the specific terms of the settlement agreements, which still need to be approved by judges.

The lawsuits against Character Technologies, the company behind Character.AI, also named Google as a defendant due to its ties to the startup after hiring its co-founders in 2024. Character declined to comment Wednesday and Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

—

EDITOR’S NOTE — This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, America’s National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available by calling or texting 988.

—-

In the Florida lawsuit, Megan Garcia alleged that her 14-year-old son Sewell Setzer III was the victim of a Character.AI chatbot that lured him into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship that led to his suicide in February 2024.

The lawsuit alleged that in the final months of his life, Setzer became increasingly isolated from reality as he engaged in sexualized conversations with the chatbot, modeled on a fictional character from the TV show “Game of Thrones.” In its final moments, the chatbot told Setzer it loved him and urged the teen to “come home as soon as possible,” according to screenshots of the exchanges.

Garcia’s lawsuit was the first in a series of similar lawsuits in the United States that have also been filed against ChatGPT maker OpenAI. A federal judge previously rejected Character’s attempt to dismiss the Florida case on First Amendment grounds.