Browse Cases

Why It Matters: The brief advances two arguments worth watching across the broader wave of child online safety litigation. First, the conduct-regulation framing — that age-gating requirements target platform business practices rather than expressive content — is the central legal lever that could determine whether strict scrutiny applies at all; if it succeeds, it substantially lowers the bar for states defending these statutes. Second, the brief surfaces a genuinely open doctrinal question that *Moody v. NetChoice* (2024) has made more acute: whether laws that in practice restrict which apps minors can access implicate platform editorial discretion regardless of how neutrally they are drafted, a tension the brief does not address. The credibility of the "disinterested scholars" posture is also contestable given Thayer's drafting role, and opposing counsel should be expected to press that point in any response.

Why It Matters: This amici brief advances a content-neutrality framework specifically designed to distinguish SB 2420 from statutes invalidated in *NetChoice v. Griffin* and *Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association*, potentially offering courts a doctrinal path to uphold app-store child-safety regulations by classifying gatekeeping and contracting functions as commercial conduct rather than protected editorial discretion — a distinction that, if accepted, could broadly affect the constitutional viability of similar legislation in other states.

Why It Matters: As part of the multi-district Character.AI litigation wave, this case contributes to the developing body of law on whether AI chatbot platforms face product liability and negligence exposure for harmful outputs to minors, and whether Section 230 and First Amendment defenses can shield AI developers from such claims — directly implicating the high-priority Garcia questions about AI-as-product and the constitutional status of AI-generated speech.

Why It Matters: This case is part of the emerging wave of AI chatbot product liability litigation testing whether traditional tort frameworks apply to conversational AI systems and their outputs. Along with Garcia and the Colorado Peralta case, it will help establish whether AI-generated content is treated as protected speech immunizing developers from liability, whether Section 230 applies to AI-generated outputs, and what duty of care AI developers owe to vulnerable user populations like minors.

Why It Matters: This case is significant because it extends the wave of product liability litigation targeting AI companion chatbots to a new federal district, naming both the AI developer and major technology investors/parent entities, which could advance questions about the scope of upstream developer and platform liability for AI-generated content causing harm to minors.

Why It Matters: This case is part of a multi-district wave of AI chatbot liability litigation against Character.AI that is actively developing the law on whether AI-generated conversational output triggers product liability exposure, whether Section 230 shields AI developers from design-defect claims, and whether the First Amendment protects AI chatbot outputs from tort liability — all three of the highest-priority open questions tracked by this newsletter as of early 2026. A second Colorado filing against Character.AI (Peralta) is already in the canonical corpus, making this case a direct parallel to track for any doctrinal divergence between districts or judges.

Why It Matters: As a second Character.AI case filed in the District of Colorado (alongside Peralta), Montoya contributes to the developing multi-district litigation landscape around AI chatbot liability and may implicate consolidation, coordinated briefing, or bellwether status on the core questions left open after Garcia — particularly whether AI chatbot platforms are "products" subject to products liability doctrine, whether Section 230 bars design-defect claims targeting the platform's own architectural choices, and whether AI-generated outputs constitute First Amendment-protected speech at the pleading stage.

Why It Matters: As part of the expanding Character.AI litigation wave, this case contributes to the developing body of law on whether AI chatbot platforms face tort liability for harmful outputs — directly implicating the unresolved questions of whether Section 230 immunizes AI-generated content and whether the First Amendment protects such output from liability, questions identified as highest-priority tracking areas under Step 5.

Why It Matters: As part of the rapidly expanding litigation against Character.AI across multiple federal districts, this case is significant for tracking how district courts outside the Middle District of Florida handle product liability, negligence, and Section 230 defenses in AI chatbot harm cases — and whether the Garcia framework (allowing design defect and failure-to-warn claims to survive at the pleading stage) is adopted, modified, or rejected in other jurisdictions. A second filing in the District of Colorado (alongside Peralta) may also signal plaintiff-side forum strategy and affect consolidation or bellwether dynamics in this litigation.

Why It Matters: This case is part of the expanding wave of Character.AI wrongful death litigation and directly implicates the high-priority questions under Step 5 — specifically, whether AI chatbot platforms can be held liable as "products" under design-defect and failure-to-warn theories, and whether Section 230 or the First Amendment bars such claims at the pleading stage. The addition of Alphabet/Google as defendants may raise novel questions about investor or parent-company liability in AI tort litigation, and the Colorado forum creates another potential circuit-level data point distinct from the Middle District of Florida's Garcia ruling.