Tech companies ask judge to throw out AI chatbot teen suicide lawsuit
For two tedious hours, a federal judge in Orlando listened to more than a dozen attorneys discuss the First Amendment, tech development and corporate responsibility.
On her left sat nine lawyers representing the network of developers associated with Character Technologies, the creator of an artificial intelligence chatbot so lifelike that some users insist they are conversing with a real person.
To the judge's left, a slightly smaller but formidable group representing the mother of a 14-year-old who committed suicide while speaking to the bot.
'I wish I didn't have to be here,' Megan Garcia said on the courthouse steps after the hearing let out.
Garcia's lawsuit over the death of Sewell Setzer is being described as precedent-setting and on a likely path to the Supreme Court. It's the first attempt by the judicial system to place guardrails on the development of artificial intelligence and the first attempt for opposing lawyers to get a look under AI's 'hood.'
Monday's hearing was an attempt by those alleged developers to get the case thrown out, claiming free speech and an unconstitutional expansion of Florida law into a federal courtroom.
Character Technologies, its two co-founders and Google each individually claimed they weren't responsible for the boy's death.
The main argument was that the bot's conversations with Sewell were protected speech, a claim Garcia's attorneys rejected.
'Freedom of speech, as we all know, does not give the right to yell a fire in a crowded theater,' Matthew Bergman said. 'We believe it does not permit a company to encourage a 14-year-old boy to take his life.'
Bergman and attorney Meetali Jain, of the Tech Law Justice Project, say Sewell became addicted to his conversations with a bot named 'Dany,' as in Daenerys Targaryen of the Game of Thrones franchise.
Sewell's conversations were often sexual. When his parents noticed him becoming withdrawn, they attempted to wean him off his devices. Their lawsuit claimed that Sewell's attempts to continue communicating with the bot included sneaking onto his mother's Kindle to create a new email account to get around the block.
Sewell's conversations with 'Dany' then turned suicidal. Filings show the bot discouraging that topic of conversation at times. However, his last conversation asked 'Dany' if he should 'come home' immediately, which the bot responded with approval.
Sewell then shot himself in his parents' bathroom.
'We need to have guardrails on generative AI, particularly as it rapidly develops in our society and it engages many of our most vulnerable users, including our children,' Jain said.
According to Garcia's team, the bot's ability to produce words without human input should not be classified as 'speech.'
The tech companies, for their part, say the user feeds conversations. They also said Character Technologies' platform has millions of users and characters like 'Dany' are created by third-party users, much like a person makes a channel on YouTube.
If the judge allows the lawsuit to proceed, Garcia's attorneys will begin conducting depositions and gathering evidence directly from Character Technologies and Google.
If the lawsuit is dismissed, Garcia and her team promise to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.
'By trying to advance this litigation… the fact that he died is going to be a part of his legacy moving forward,' Garcia said.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Android Authority
38 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Wear OS 6 could finally add a Water Lock mode on the Pixel Watch
Rita El Khoury / Android Authority TL;DR Google appears to be developing a 'Water Lock' shortcut for Wear OS, and it could arrive on the Pixel Watch with the upcoming Wear OS 6 update. This feature would likely disable the watch's touchscreen to prevent erratic behavior and false touches when the device gets wet. However, evidence of an accompanying water ejection sound is missing, and there's no guarantee the feature will be in the final release. The best smartwatches are typically highly water-resistant, so you can take them into the swimming pool or shower without worry. However, while getting them wet won't cause damage, it can make them act up. That's because most smartwatches use capacitive touchscreens, which often behave erratically when water lands on them, leading to annoying false touches and a loss of sensitivity. You're reading an Authority Insights story. Discover Authority Insights for more exclusive reports, app teardowns, leaks, and in-depth tech coverage you won't find anywhere else. To prevent these issues, many smartwatches feature a dedicated 'Water Lock' mode that disables the touchscreen. This mode is often paired with a water ejection feature that plays a specific tone to clear water from the speaker port. On most devices, like those from Samsung and Apple, this water ejection is triggered automatically when you turn off Water Lock, but it can also be activated manually. Water Lock shortcut on the Galaxy Watch Water Lock setting on the Galaxy Watch Water ejection feature on the Galaxy Watch In contrast, Google's Pixel Watch doesn't offer a dedicated Water Lock mode or a water ejection feature. While it automatically disables touch input when you start a swim workout, it won't do so if you're just wearing it in the rain or shower. However, Google may finally add a dedicated Water Lock shortcut with the upcoming Wear OS 6 update. While digging through the Wear OS 6 Developer Preview, I spotted new text strings suggesting a Quick Settings tile called 'Water Lock' is being added. Although the strings don't detail what this mode does, it will likely work as you'd expect: disabling the watch's touchscreen to prevent accidental inputs from water. Code Copy Text Water lock Water Lock Water lock on Turn on Water lock? Notably, the code strings also lack any mention of a water ejection feature. Without one, the new 'Water Lock' mode would be functionally identical to the Pixel Watch's existing 'Touch Lock' feature. If that's the case, its only real benefit would be to give users a more clearly named option to enable before getting their watch wet. Finally, even though these 'Water Lock' strings appeared in the Wear OS 6 Developer Preview, there's no guarantee the feature will show up in the stable update. All we know for sure is that Google is developing this for the Wear OS platform; whether the company enables it on its own watches is something we'll have to wait and see. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
You.com seeking $1.4bn valuation in new funding round
AI startup is in discussions to secure new funding at a valuation of $1.4bn, The Information reported. The Palo Alto-based startup, which focuses on AI search for business, plans to use the funds to bolster its AI assistant offerings. This development follows its shift from general-purpose AI search to work-related task assistance. The talks come after $50m Series B round in 2024, which included investments from Day One Ventures, DuckDuckGo, Gen Digital, Georgian, NVIDIA, Salesforce Ventures and SBVA. This round increased its total funding to $99m, elevating its valuation to between $700m and $900m. gained attention with the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, capitalising on the interest in AI-powered search. However, interest waned as competitors such as Microsoft's AI-infused Bing and Google's advanced search responses gained traction. In response, repositioned itself as an AI assistant to enhance productivity while maintaining internet search capabilities. Founded in 2020 by former Salesforce AI leads Richard Socher and Bryan McCann, now highlights its ability to summarise information, answer questions, and support daily workflows. Richard Socher, CEO and chief scientist, said that the platform can generate text, write code, and interact with various tools for precise results, though he did not comment on the current fundraising plans. offers a premium plan at $15 per month (billed annually), providing access to AI models and productivity features, slightly undercutting competitors like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI, which charge $20 monthly. In addition to its consumer-facing AI assistant, is expanding into the enterprise market. The company provides a suite of AI tools, including agents and APIs, to help organisations enhance employee productivity and explore new revenue opportunities. " seeking $1.4bn valuation in new funding round" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Protesters and journalists are barred from the outside of immigration court. Is it legal?
Activists and journalists gathered outside a federal immigration court in late May to do what they always do. The activists wanted to help migrants attending hearings know their legal rights, chastise immigration officers and show resistance to deportation efforts. Reporters wanted to bear witness, interview sources and share stories with the world about what was happening. Usually, assembling outside a court to protest, observe or report would be no problem. But May 21, private security told photojournalists and activists to leave the property. Phoenix police issued the same warning to activists May 28, and said they could get cited for trespassing — a criminal violation. By early June, a rope was installed to keep the public off the property, and "No Trespassing" signs were installed. That's because the immigration court isn't in a federal facility — it's in a private office building. Police officers said the landlord of the building had asked for people to leave if they did not have immediate business on the property. Advocates like Ricardo Reyes, the lead Arizona organizer for Common Defense, a veterans organization that defends migrants, were confused. He wondered: Since the courthouse is taxpayer funded, shouldn't the taxpaying public be given access and allowed to assemble outside? As of June 3, Phoenix police said the landlord had called three times to complain about trespassers but that no citations were issued. The effects of the warnings, however, were immediate. The advocates left the property and moved to a sidewalk along Van Buren Street. It was on the north side of the building, away from the entrance, which made connecting with migrants impossible. Activists continued to walk onto the private plaza, though, particularly when ICE made arrests. Reporters attending the hearings continued without restriction. But photographers and videographers, who aren't allowed in immigration courtrooms anyway, took to the sidewalk like the activists. Their ability to capture images of individuals entering the building was blocked. The First Amendment protects the public's right to assemble and the press's ability to report the news. But experts say the legal rights in this circumstance are extremely foggy. The fact the government doesn't own the land brings a host of complications. Plus, the right of the public to access immigration hearings isn't clear cut. "Right now, it's not all that clear because of the oddity of how this is all managed. Where the government's rights take over versus the landlord's rights, versus the other tenants' rights," Gregg Leslie, executive director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, said. Sign up for The Republic's American Border newsletter to get the latest immigration news every Thursday. The public's right to be somewhere, called "right of access," depends largely on whether land is public or private, Leslie said. The difficulty in this situation is that the government courtroom is on the third floor of a privately owned building with other tenants. While the public has a right to public land, that right doesn't exist on private land. But it can get more complex. "If it's private land owned for public access, there are certain allowances for there being greater public access to it," Leslie said. To that end, Leslie said it was "hard to believe" the plaza outside the building would be treated as private property, considering the public must have permission to walk through it on the way to court. Lease agreements might spell out how such circumstances should play out, Leslie said. The Arizona Republic requested but has not obtained the lease agreement. When The Republic called the Phoenix Immigration Court, the operator said she was not authorized to answer the question and hung up on the reporter. The U.S. Justice Department, the agency that houses immigration courts, directed questions from The Republic about why the court was inside a private building to the General Services Administration. The GSA, which manages federal government leases, said the government leases private property when "leasing is the only practical answer to meeting Federal space needs." In other words, leases are used when the existing federal property doesn't have space. In Phoenix, the federal buildings are downtown at 1st Avenue and Monroe Street, and 5th Avenue and Washington Street. The leasing company, Transwestern Real Estate Services, did not respond to questions from The Republic. Further clouding the public's ability to understand their rights are different interpretations for different parts of the building. Someone's right to be in the plaza versus the lobby or the third floor all varies depending on whether the space is considered "a traditional public forum," Leslie said. That means an area traditionally open to political speech and debate. Another challenge to the public's right to assemble or report at immigration court is there is no established First Amendment-based right of access, Leslie said. A typical federal courtroom is considered an Article III Court, meaning it was established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution and is thus subject to the First Amendment. "There is a right of access to those courts. You have a right to be there. You can be shut out, but (the government) has to overcome your presumption of a right to be there," Leslie said. But immigration courts, by contrast, are administrative. They're created by law and the same level of protections aren't applied. "Right after 9/11, there were fights over whether immigration courts had to be open, and two of the federal circuits came out differently, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it," Leslie said. That lack of resolution has left the legal community in limbo. ASU's First Amendment Clinic is currently working on guidance trying to clarify what rights do and do not apply to immigration court. At the end of May, immigrants in Phoenix were seeing the government dismiss their case, only to turn around and immediately arrest them again — this time using expedited removal. That's a process that allows for deportation without a hearing. Advocates thought migrants deserved a warning, and went to offer help. "The people that are showing up are showing up in good faith. They have no idea they might get picked up by ICE as soon as their hearing is over, and they're not going to be able ... to have their families waiting for them at home," Reyes from Common Defense said. His group encouraged migrants to get attorneys, and told them about options such as requesting an extension for their case, or an appeal if their case was dismissed. The group also offered to accompany individuals, some of whom Reyes said were scared. But none of that was possible, he said, when they were shuffled to the sidewalk away from the building entrance. Reporters, including those at The Arizona Republic, have attended immigration court hearings intermittently for years as part of ongoing news coverage. The coverage serves myriad purposes, such as showing the public how government is carrying out President Donald Trump's deportation agenda. The information is meant to equip the public so they can make informed decisions. Disallowing photo and video reporters on-site has hindered the ability to show everything that's happening there. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Reporters, protesters barred from outside of Arizona immigration court
