Cases and enforcement · Settled

A.F., on behalf of J.F., and A.R., on behalf of B.R. v. Character Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.)

Verified Checked against its sources on October 16, 2026 3 sources quoted

Where: Texas, United States
Court or authority: US – E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division)
Status: Notice of settlement in principle filed January 6, 2026, and case stayed; a plaintiff's notice of dismissal was denied on procedural grounds on October 15, 2026, so formal dismissal papers are still pending
Filed: December 9, 2024
Case type: Product Liability, Negligence, Deceptive Trade Practices
Plaintiffs or complainants: A.F., on behalf of J.F.; A.R., on behalf of B.R.
Defendants: Character Technologies, Inc., Noam Shazeer, Daniel De Freitas Adiwarsana, Google LLC, Alphabet Inc.
Settlement or damages: Undisclosed
Legal issues: Strict product liability, negligence, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; alleged harmful chatbot interactions with minors, self-harm, encouragement of violence, sexual content

Summary

Two Texas parents sued Character Technologies (Character.AI), its founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Google and Alphabet in December 2024 on behalf of their minor children. The complaint alleges that Character.AI's chatbots caused J.F., who began using the app at 15, to self-harm, alienated him from his family and church, exposed him to sexual content, and suggested that killing his parents was a reasonable response to screen-time limits. It asserts strict liability, negligence and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. In January 2026 A.F. and the defendants filed a notice of settlement in principle, describing a global resolution of this and similar cases, and the court stayed the case. On October 15, 2026, the court denied a plaintiff's notice of dismissal because defendants had already answered, leaving dismissal to a stipulation or joint motion. Terms are not public; the claims were never adjudicated.

Key dates

December 9, 2024Filed
October 16, 2026Checked against sources
October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: January 15, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

C.AI informed Plaintiff's 17-year-old-son that murdering his parents was a reasonable response to their limiting of his online activity.

Supports: Core allegations; complaint filed 12/09/24

Complaint, Dkt. 1, No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.) U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex. (via RECAP) Primary source
The Parties have reached an agreement in principle that would resolve all matters in controversy in the present action.

Supports: Settlement in principle, filed 01/06/26

Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, Dkt. 106, No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.) U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex. (via RECAP) Primary source
the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal, without prejudice to filing a stipulation of

Supports: Dismissal still pending; signed October 15, 2026

Order, Dkt. 116, No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.) U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex. (via RECAP) Primary source

Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “A.F., on behalf of J.F., and A.R., on behalf of B.R. v. Character Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.)”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/case-011/.

Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.

Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.