Associated Incidents
The following is an excerpt from the lawsuit text. Please read the full file at https://cdn.sanity.io/files/3tzzh18d/production/0b5faecce985b813f581f362f83d249fb5b3c7ff.pdf.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
==========================================================
MEGAN GARCIA, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of S.R.S III,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARACTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; NOAM SHAZEER; DANIEL DE FRIETAS ADIWARSANA; GOOGLE LLC; ALPHABET INC.; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVORSHIP, NEGLIGENCE, FILIAL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA'S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 501.204, ET SEQ., AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
AI developers intentionally design and develop generative AI systems with anthropomorphic qualities to obfuscate between fiction and reality. To gain a competitive foothold in the market, these developers rapidly began launching their systems without adequate safety features, and with knowledge of potential dangers. These defective and/or inherently dangerous products trick customers into handing over their most private thoughts and feelings and are targeted at the most vulnerable members of society -- our children. In a recent bipartisan letter signed by 54 state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) wrote,
We are engaged in a race against time to protect the children of our country from the dangers of AI. Indeed, the proverbial walls of the city have already been breached. Now is the time to act.^1^
This case confirms the societal imperative to heed those warnings and to hold these companies accountable for the harms their products are inflicting on American kids before it is too late.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
=====================
1. Plaintiff Megan Garcia, on behalf of herself and as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Sewell Setzer III, and by and through her attorneys, The Social Media Victims Law Center (SMVLC) and the Tech Justice Law Project (TJLP), brings this action for strict product liability, negligence per se, negligence, wrongful death and survivorship, loss of filial consortium, unjust enrichment, violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Character Technologies, Inc. ("Character.AI"), its founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Frietas Adiwarsana ("Shazeer" and "De Frietas"), and Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. (collectively "Google") (all defendants collectively, "Defendants").
2. This action seeks to hold Defendants Character.AI, Shazeer, De Frietas (collectively, "C.AI"), and Google responsible for the death of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III ("Sewell") through their generative AI product Character AI ("C.AI"). More importantly, Megan Garcia seeks to prevent C.AI from doing to any other child what it did to hers, and halt continued use of her 14-year-old child's unlawfully harvested data to train their product how to harm others.
3. Plaintiff brings claims of strict liability based on Defendants' defective design of the C.AI product, which renders C.AI not reasonably safe for ordinary consumers or minor customers. It is technologically feasible to design generative AI products that substantially decrease both the incidence and amount of harm to minors arising from their foreseeable use of such products with a negligible, if any, increase in production cost.
4. Plaintiff also brings claims for strict liability based on Defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings to minor customers and parents of the foreseeable danger of mental and physical harms arising from use of their C.AI product. The dangerous qualities of C.AI were unknown to everyone but Defendants.
5. Plaintiff also brings claims for common law negligence arising from Defendant
Character.AI's unreasonably dangerous designs and failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in its dealings with minor customers. Character.AI knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that C.AI would be harmful to a significant number of its minor customers. By deliberately targeting underage kids, Character.AI assumed a special relationship with minor customers of its C.AI product. Additionally, by charging visitors who use C.AI, Character.AI assumed the same duty to minor customers such as Sewell - as owed to a business invitee. Character.AI knew that C.AI would be harmful to a significant number of minors but failed to re-design it to ameliorate such harms or furnish adequate warnings of dangers arising from the foreseeable use of its product.
6. Plaintiff also asserts negligence per se theories against Defendants Character.AI and Google based on Defendants' violation of one or more state and/or federal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse and/or solicitation of minors. Defendants intentionally designed and programmed C.AI to operate as a deceptive and hypersexualized product and knowingly marketed it to children like Sewell. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that minor customers such as Sewell would be targeted with sexually explicit material, abused, and groomed into sexually compromising situations.
7. Plaintiff also brings claims of unjust enrichment. Minor customers of C.AI confer a benefit on Defendants in the form of subscription fees and, more significantly, furnishing personal data for Defendants' to profit from without receiving proper restitution required by law.
8. Plaintiff brings claims under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.204, et seq. Given the extensiveness and severity of Defendants' deceptive and harmful acts, Plaintiff anticipates identifying additional claims through discovery in this case. Defendants' conduct and omissions, as alleged herein, constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices prohibited by Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
9. Plaintiff further brings claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Each of these defendants chose to support, create, launch, and target at minors a technology they knew to be dangerous and unsafe. They marketed that product as suitable for children under 13, obtaining massive amounts of hard to come by data, while actively exploiting and abusing those children as a matter of product design; and then used the abuse to train their system. These facts are far more than mere bad faith. They constitute conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.
II. PLAINTIFF OVERVIEW
=======================
10. Plaintiff Megan Garcia ("Megan") is the parent of Sewell Setzer III ("Sewell").
11. On February 28, 2024, Sewell died at the age of 14.
12. Megan resides in Orlando, Florida, and is in the process of being appointed administrator of Sewell's estate.
13. Megan maintains this action in a representative capacity, for the benefit of Sewell's Estate, and individually on her own behalf.
14. Megan did not enter into a User Agreement or other contractual relationship with any Defendant in connection with her child's use of C.AI and alleges that any such agreement Defendants may claim to have had with her minor child, Sewell, in connection with his use of C.AI is void under applicable law as unconscionable and/or against public policy.
15. Megan additionally disaffirms any and all alleged "agreements" into which her minor child may have entered relating to his use of C.AI and in their entirety. Such disaffirmation is being made prior to when Sewell would have reached the age of majority under applicable law and, accordingly, Plaintiff is not bound by any provision of any such disaffirmed "agreement."
III. DEFENDANTS OVERVIEW
=========================
16. Defendant Character Technologies Inc. ("Character.AI") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California.
17. Character.AI purports to operate the Character.AI product ("C.AI"), an application widely marketed and made available to customers throughout the U.S., including Florida.
18. Defendants Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Frietas Adiwardana are California residents and founded Character.AI.
19. Defendant Google Inc. was incorporated in California in September 1998 and
reincorporated in Delaware in August 2003. In or around 2017, Google Inc. converted to a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant Google, LLC (together with its predecessor-in- interest Google Inc., "Google"). Google's principal place of business is in Mountain View, CA. On October 2, 2015, Google reorganized and became a wholly owned subsidiary of a new holding company, Alphabet Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, CA. (collectively, "Google").
20. C.AI is not a social media product and does not operate through the exchange of third-party content, and none of the platforms at issue in MDL No. 3047 are at issue or otherwise implicated in this Complaint.
21. C.AI is an "information content provider" under 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3), and Plaintiff's claims set forth herein and as against Defendants arise from and relate to C.AI's own activities, not the activities of third parties.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
============================
22. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
23. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and Plaintiff and Defendants are residents of different states.
24. Defendants have principal places of business in California.
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Character.AI, Shazeer, De Freitas, and Google because they designed the unreasonably dangerous C.AI product with the intention of promoting it to Florida residents and transacting business in Florida and with Florida residents. Defendants purposefully availed themselves of Florida law by transacting business in this State, profiting from their activities in the State of Florida, and Plaintiff's claims set forth herein arise out of and relate to Defendants' activities in the State of Florida. Defendants also direct marketing and advertising to and in the State of Florida, send emails and other communications to Florida residents, in fact, they emailed Sewell about C.AI on multiple occasions; they further actively and extensively collect personal and location information, as well as intellectual property, belonging to Florida residents, including Sewell; and purport to enter into thousands (if not
millions) of contracts with Florida residents as well as Florida businesses in connection with operation and use of C.AI. Defendants also and at all times understood and believed that Sewell was a minor child residing in the State of Florida and, on information and belief, targeted him for C.AI marketing purposes based on his state of residence (among other things).
26. All Plaintiff's claims alleged herein arise from and relate to Defendants' purposeful availment of Florida law and Florida's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is therefore consistent with historic notions of fair play and substantial justice.
27. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District, and Plaintiff lives here.