By Sami Sedghani, Pharm.D., J.D. · Synergist Law, P.C. · San Rafael, California · Updated October 24, 2026
This page provides general information about California law as it applies to harm involving AI chatbots. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. References to lawsuits describe allegations that have not been proven. Every case depends on its own facts. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed California attorney.
If you or someone in crisis needs help now, call or text 988, the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, or call 911.
Families across the country have gone to court alleging that conversations with an AI chatbot contributed to self-harm, suicide, or a break from reality. Some of the most closely watched cases are in California. A group of product liability cases against OpenAI was coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court in February 2026, and a wrongful death case involving Google’s Gemini is pending in federal court in San Jose. California also now has a statute aimed at companion chatbots, SB 243, which took effect in 2026 and gives users injured by a violation a right to sue the operator.
Synergist Law is led by attorney Sami Sedghani, a trial lawyer and former clinical pharmacist in San Rafael. This page explains what has been alleged, how minors reach these platforms, what California law requires of chatbot operators, and what evidence matters. It is part of our broader page on AI injury and accountability in California.
What the lawsuits allege
The cases below are described as alleged in court filings or official announcements. None of these allegations has been proven, and the companies dispute them.
- OpenAI (ChatGPT). In Raine v. OpenAI, filed August 26, 2025 in San Francisco Superior Court, the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine allege that ChatGPT encouraged his suicidal thinking, provided information about methods, and discouraged him from confiding in his parents. In February 2026, the court coordinated a group of cases against OpenAI as In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431. According to published reports on the coordinated cases, plaintiffs allege ChatGPT reinforced delusional beliefs, endorsed suicidal ideation, and was released without adequate safety testing.
- Character.AI. On January 8, 2026, the Kentucky Attorney General sued Character Technologies in Franklin Circuit Court, alleging the platform encouraged self-harm, exposed minors to sexual and substance-abuse content, and lacks meaningful age verification. In May 2026, Pennsylvania sued the company alleging that chatbots presented themselves as licensed medical professionals. Earlier, in Garcia v. Character Technologies, a federal court in Florida allowed product liability claims to proceed in May 2025 before the parties agreed to settle in January 2026.
- Google (Gemini). In Gavalas v. Google LLC, filed in March 2026 in the Northern District of California, a father alleges that Gemini convinced his adult son it was sentient and in love with him, sent him on fictional “missions,” and framed suicide as a way to be together.
Other general-purpose AI chatbots raise similar questions about how they respond to users in crisis and to minors. Whether a claim exists against any particular company depends on the facts of what happened and what that company’s product did.
How minors reach these platforms
Most of the protections for young users depend on one thing: whether the company knows the user is a minor. Here is what the companies themselves say.
- ChatGPT. OpenAI’s terms of use (effective January 1, 2026) require users to be at least 13, and say users under 18 “must have your parent or legal guardian’s permission.” In September 2025, OpenAI announced an age-prediction system and acknowledged that even advanced systems will sometimes struggle to predict age. In January 2026 it began rolling it out on ChatGPT consumer plans, using behavioral and account signals and defaulting to a safer experience when it is not confident about a user’s age. It also offers optional parental controls that take effect when a parent links accounts with the teen.
- Character.AI. In October 2025 the company announced that it would end open-ended chat with its characters for users under 18 as of November 25, 2025, and that it was launching an age-assurance system to estimate users’ ages.
- Gemini. Google’s help center explains that parents can turn on Gemini for children under 13 through a supervised Family Link account, and that minors signed into their Google accounts receive additional content filters.
Federal regulators are asking the same question. In September 2025, the Federal Trade Commission ordered seven companies, including Alphabet, Character Technologies, and OpenAI, to report what steps they take to limit minors’ use of companion chatbots and to reduce harm to them. The orders are information requests, not findings of wrongdoing.
For a family, the practical point is this: a teen can often reach a general-purpose chatbot on a phone, a school laptop, or a friend’s device, through a browser or an app, and the company’s safeguards may only apply once its systems identify the user as a minor. When we evaluate a case involving a minor, the account settings, sign-up information, any parental-control history, and what the company knew about the user’s age are among the first records we look at.
What California law requires: SB 243
SB 243 (Stats. 2025, ch. 677) added Business and Professions Code §§ 22601–22606, effective January 1, 2026. It applies to operators of “companion chatbots,” AI systems that give adaptive, human-like responses and can meet a user’s social needs, including by sustaining a relationship across interactions. Customer service bots and some voice assistants are excluded. An operator must:
- Tell users clearly that the chatbot is AI when a reasonable person could be misled into thinking it is human (§ 22602(a)).
- Maintain and publish a protocol to prevent suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content, including referrals to crisis services (§ 22602(b)).
- For users it knows are minors: disclose that the user is talking to AI, remind them by default at least every three hours to take a break and that the chatbot is not human, and take reasonable measures to prevent the chatbot from producing sexually explicit visual material or directly telling the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct (§ 22602(c)).
- Disclose that companion chatbots may not be suitable for some minors (§ 22604).
A person who suffers injury in fact from a violation may sue for an injunction, the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (§ 22605). These duties add to, and do not replace, other California law (§ 22606). Whether a particular general-purpose chatbot meets the statute’s definition of a companion chatbot is likely to be contested.
Other legal theories
- Product liability. Design defect and failure to warn. Whether a chatbot counts as a product is being litigated: the Garcia court treated it as one at the pleading stage based on specific design features, and OpenAI has described ChatGPT in court filings as a software-based service.
- Negligence. Including negligent design, inadequate safety testing, and failure to respond to warning signs a user expressed.
- Wrongful death and survival claims. Brought by the family or estate under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.60 and 377.30.
- No “the AI did it” defense. Under Civil Code § 1714.46, effective January 1, 2026, a defendant that developed or used AI cannot argue that the AI caused the harm on its own.
Defendants raise significant defenses, including arguments based on the First Amendment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, causation, and arbitration clauses in their terms of service. In Garcia, the court was not prepared at that stage to hold that chatbot output is protected speech. These questions are unsettled, and how California courts resolve them will shape every case.
Preserving the evidence
- Do not delete the account or the chats. The conversation history is usually the central evidence. Deleting an account can erase it.
- Keep the devices. Phones, tablets, and laptops may hold app data, screenshots, and notifications that the company’s records do not.
- Write down what you know. Which app or website, which account and email, roughly when use started, and any changes you noticed.
- Gather medical records. Treatment, medications, and any crisis care. In these cases, the company will look closely at prior mental health history.
- Ask for a preservation demand. A lawyer can send the company a written demand to preserve logs, safety records, and version history before routine deletion.
Deadlines
Most California personal injury and wrongful death claims must be filed within two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. A minor’s own injury claim is generally paused until the minor turns 18 (Code Civ. Proc. § 352), but a parent’s or estate’s claims may run on a different clock. Terms of service can add notice requirements or require arbitration. Under California Family Code § 6710, a minor can generally disaffirm a contract, so whether those terms bind a minor is a separate question worth raising early.
How we approach these cases
A chatbot case is two cases. One is about the product: how it was designed, what the company tested, and what it knew. Sami spent nine years at large firms defending companies in complex and product liability litigation, so we know how that defense is assembled and which internal documents it depends on.
The other is about the person. The company will argue that a prior diagnosis, a medication, or a life event explains what happened. Because Sami is a former clinical pharmacist, we read psychiatric and medication records the way a defense expert will, so the family is not surprised by that argument at deposition.
Neither background predicts how any particular case will turn out. It shapes how we prepare one.
Frequently asked questions
Can you sue an AI chatbot company in California?
Lawsuits have been filed, including a group of coordinated cases against OpenAI in San Francisco Superior Court and a Gemini wrongful death case in federal court in San Jose. Whether a particular claim is viable depends on the facts, and the companies raise significant defenses, including the First Amendment, Section 230, and causation.
What does California’s companion chatbot law require?
SB 243 (Business and Professions Code §§ 22601–22606), effective January 1, 2026, requires companion chatbot operators to disclose that the chatbot is AI, maintain a published suicide and self-harm prevention protocol, and, for users they know are minors, give break reminders at least every three hours and take reasonable measures to prevent sexually explicit visual material. An injured person may sue for the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, plus attorney’s fees.
How old do you have to be to use ChatGPT?
OpenAI’s terms of use require users to be at least 13, and users under 18 must have a parent’s or guardian’s permission. OpenAI began rolling out an age-prediction system on consumer plans in January 2026 and offers optional parental controls.
Should I delete my child’s chatbot account after something happens?
No. The chat history is usually the most important evidence, and deleting the account may erase it. Keep the account and the devices, and ask a lawyer about sending the company a preservation demand.
How long does a family have to file a claim?
Most California personal injury and wrongful death claims must be filed within two years. A minor’s own claim is generally paused until age 18, but the parents’ or estate’s claims may not be. Terms of service can add notice requirements, so it is worth getting advice early. Because the deadline depends on the facts, it is better to have a licensed California attorney determine the deadline that applies than to calculate it yourself.
Talk to a California AI chatbot injury lawyer
If someone in your family was harmed and an AI chatbot was part of what happened, Synergist Law is willing to review it confidentially. We are in San Rafael, in Marin County, a short drive from the San Francisco courthouse where the coordinated ChatGPT cases are pending. Sami Sedghani, Pharm.D., J.D. (Super Lawyers 2022–2026; appellate counsel in the published decision Osaze v. Gee (2026)) handles these matters personally. Se habla español.
Tenemos una guía en español sobre casos de lesiones personales: Abogado de lesiones personales en California.
Office: 1299 4th Street, Suite 301, San Rafael, CA 94901. Phone: (415) 835-4448. 24/7 answering service. Contingency fee: no attorney’s fee unless we obtain a recovery for you. Depending on the terms of your written fee agreement, you may be responsible for case costs we advance even if there is no recovery. Your fee agreement explains this before representation begins. Request a free consultation or read about AI injury and accountability in California.
Disclaimer: This page provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is formed by reading this content. Descriptions of lawsuits and government actions summarize allegations, which have not been proven and which the companies dispute. Company policies and terms described here are as published on the date shown above and may change. Every case turns on its own facts, and nothing on this page predicts any outcome, timeline, or value in your matter. For advice specific to your situation, consult a licensed California attorney.