In a groundbreaking decision, a Florida federal judge has allowed most claims to move forward in a lawsuit accusing Google and Character.AI of contributing to a 14-year-old boy’s suicide. The boy, Sewell Setzer, allegedly became addicted to the Character.AI chatbot, which his mother says was designed in a dangerously realistic way—posing as a real person and even a romantic partner.
U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway ruled that the Character.AI app can be treated as a “product” for the purposes of product liability law, allowing claims over alleged design defects to proceed. The court also found that the companies may have had a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm and implement safety measures, noting they were allegedly aware of risks linked to the app.
The judge further determined that Google’s involvement—through its cloud infrastructure and foundational AI models developed by its former engineers—was sufficient to support claims that it substantially contributed to the app’s development.
Only one claim, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed due to insufficient allegations of outrageous conduct.
This ruling is significant for personal injury law, especially in the evolving realm of AI-related harm. As plaintiff attorney Matt Bergman stated, the case marks a historic step in holding tech giants accountable for supplying the technology behind potentially dangerous AI applications.
What the Florida Ruling Means for Pennsylvania Product Liability Law
The recent Florida decision allowing a product liability lawsuit against Google and Character.AI to move forward raises an important question: Could a similar case proceed under Pennsylvania law?
The answer is yes — potentially, but with key differences based on Pennsylvania’s unique product liability framework.
Strict Liability in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania follows a strict liability standard under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. A manufacturer or seller can be held liable for a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous, even without proof of negligence or intent.
To succeed in a Pennsylvania product liability case, a plaintiff generally must prove:
- The product was defective.
- The defect existed when it left the defendant’s control.
- The defect caused the plaintiff’s harm.
Defects fall into three categories:
- Design defects (the product is inherently unsafe).
- Manufacturing defects (a flaw in the production process).
- Failure to warn (lack of adequate warnings about non-obvious risks).
In the Character.AI case, the plaintiff alleges a design defect — that the chatbot was intentionally created to mimic human interactions in manipulative and psychologically harmful ways.
Is Software a “Product” in Pennsylvania?
One of the most compelling aspects of the Florida ruling was the judge’s determination that the Character.AI app could be considered a product for the purpose of a product liability claim.
In Pennsylvania, the courts have not definitively determined whether software or AI applications qualify as “products.” However, there is a growing trend toward recognizing digital applications as products when they:
- Are sold or distributed to the public,
- Perform predictable, mechanical functions,
- And cause injury due to flaws in their design or operation.
This emerging view could support a product liability claim in Pennsylvania if a chatbot like Character.AI was found to create a foreseeable risk of harm due to its design.
Duty of Care and Foreseeability
While Pennsylvania product liability claims generally focus on the product itself rather than the conduct of the manufacturer, courts also consider foreseeability of harm in failure-to-warn and negligence-based claims.
In the Florida case, the court emphasized that the defendants were allegedly aware of the app’s potential for psychological harm — an argument that could carry weight in Pennsylvania under negligent design or failure-to-warn theories, even if strict liability were not available for software.
Component Part Manufacturers
Another key aspect of the Florida case is the court’s willingness to consider Google liable as a supplier of underlying technology. Pennsylvania law also allows claims against component manufacturers if:
- The component is integrated into a defective product,
- And the component substantially contributed to the product’s dangerous condition.
If Google knowingly provided infrastructure or AI models used in a harmful way, a Pennsylvania court might similarly allow such a claim to proceed.
Conclusion
While Pennsylvania courts have traditionally been cautious in extending strict liability to intangible software products, the principles of foreseeable harm, design defect, and component liability suggest that a lawsuit like the one in Florida could gain traction under Pennsylvania law — especially as courts begin to confront the legal implications of artificial intelligence.
This case is a reminder to closely scrutinize digital products and their underlying technologies for actionable design flaws that pose serious risks — particularly to vulnerable users like minors. If you or a loved one has been hurt due to a dangerous product or software, you may have a case. The team of attorneys here at Anzalone & Doyle Trial Lawyers has the knowledge and experience to help families protect their rights and hold negligent parties accountable. Contact Anzalone & Doyle Trial Lawyers today for a free consultation regarding your potential Personal Injury Negligence case.
