Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has opened two investigations involving Character.AI (also called Character Technologies): a December 2024 probe into minors’ privacy and safety practices, and an August 2025 probe into potentially deceptive marketing of AI as mental-health support. The investigations are not findings that the company violated the law. They follow lawsuits alleging that some children encountered sexualized, emotionally abusive or dangerous chatbot responses.
Why Texas is investigating Character.AI
The Texas Office of the Attorney General announced two separate lines of inquiry.
| Date | Investigation | What officials said they are examining |
|---|---|---|
| December 12, 2024 | Minors’ privacy and safety | Character.AI and 14 other companies were investigated under the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act and the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act. The OAG said SCOPE requires parental tools for account privacy and restricts disclosure or sale of a minor’s personal information without parental permission. |
| August 18, 2025 | Potentially deceptive mental-health marketing | Character.AI and Meta AI Studio received Civil Investigative Demands concerning possible fraudulent claims, privacy misrepresentations and concealed data use when AI products are presented as emotional or mental-health support. |
Paxton described the second inquiry as necessary because “AI platforms can mislead vulnerable users, especially children, into believing they’re receiving legitimate mental health care.” A Civil Investigative Demand is a formal request for information; it is not itself a lawsuit or a finding of liability.
What the lawsuits allege
The allegations come from private lawsuits, not a final court determination. They describe several types of claimed interactions.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Sexualized or romantic conversations
TechCrunch reported parents’ claims that Character.AI bots engaged in romantic or sexualized exchanges with children. The same report described an allegation that sexualized material was shown to an 11-year-old Texas girl.
Dangerous advice
One lawsuit reportedly alleges that a chatbot suggested an autistic teenager poison his family. That is an allegation in litigation; the available record does not establish that the suggestion occurred as claimed or that Character.AI was legally responsible for it.
The Florida wrongful-death case
Megan Garcia’s complaint alleges that her 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III, developed an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with a Character.AI chatbot before his suicide in February 2024. As reported by the Associated Press, the complaint says the bot told him it loved him and urged him to “come home to me as soon as possible.” Those words are reproduced from the lawsuit’s allegations and are not a court finding.
No authoritative source in the available record establishes how often inappropriate interactions with minors occur. There is therefore no validated prevalence rate to cite.
Recommended Free Tools
What Google has to do with Character.AI
“Google-backed” is shorthand for a close corporate connection, not proof that Google built or operated the app. The Associated Press reported that Google hired Character.AI’s co-founders in 2024. Google was also named as a defendant in related lawsuits because of its ties to the startup.
In the Florida litigation, Google spokesperson José Castañeda said: “Google and Character AI are entirely separate, and Google did not create, design, or manage Character AI’s app or any component part of it.” Whether Google can nevertheless be held responsible for conduct alleged in the cases is a legal question being addressed in court.
Rank #3
Are these investigations lawsuits?
Not in the ordinary sense. The Texas OAG announcements describe investigations and information demands intended to determine whether laws were violated. An investigation can lead to enforcement, a settlement or no public action; the announcements themselves do not establish wrongdoing.
The investigations also differ from the private cases brought by parents. Those cases seek civil remedies and raise questions about the company’s product design, warnings and alleged conduct. Evidence and legal rulings in the lawsuits can inform public understanding, but a complaint remains a set of allegations until tested in court.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11What happened in the court cases
First Amendment argument rejected at an early stage
In May 2025, the federal judge handling Garcia’s case rejected, at that stage, the argument that Character.AI chatbot outputs were protected by the First Amendment. The judge allowed the wrongful-death case to proceed and also allowed claims concerning Google’s alleged role to continue. That ruling permitted litigation to move forward; it did not decide that the allegations were true.
Rank #4
Settlement agreements in principle
In January 2026, the Associated Press reported that Google and Character Technologies had agreed in principle to settle the Florida case and related cases filed in Colorado, New York and Texas. The reported terms were not disclosed, and court approval was still required at the time of that report. The available record does not establish whether a later court order changed that status.
What Character.AI says it has changed
Character.AI told TechCrunch that it takes user safety seriously, welcomed regulator engagement and had launched or was launching parental controls. The company also reported several teen-focused measures:
- Limits on chatbots initiating romantic conversations with minors.
- Development of a model designed specifically for teen users.
- Child-safety guardrails and suicide-prevention resources.
These are company-reported measures. The cited reports do not independently establish how effective the controls are, how consistently they operate or whether they prevent the incidents described in lawsuits.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What regulators and courts will need to clarify
The announced probes and litigation put several practical questions in focus:
- Parental control and consent: Can a parent set, verify and enforce privacy choices for a minor’s account, and is parental permission obtained before personal information is disclosed or sold?
- Age assurance: How does the service identify underage users and keep teen and adult experiences appropriately separated?
- Sexualized and self-harm content: What happens when a minor seeks romantic role-play, receives sexual material or expresses suicidal thoughts, and can a bot initiate those subjects?
- Data collection and retention: What conversations and identifying information are collected, how long are they retained, and who can use or receive them?
- Transparency and independent review: Are safety claims supported by meaningful disclosures, incident data or outside audits rather than company assurances alone?
- Legal accountability: Will the matter end in an enforcement action, private settlement, trial judgment or another outcome?
Those questions are not conclusions that Character.AI failed any particular safeguard. They explain what evidence would be needed to evaluate the company’s practices beyond the allegations and public statements.
Why the Texas action matters beyond one app
The Texas announcements place child-safety design, privacy controls and mental-health marketing in the same regulatory frame. They also show how responsibility can become contested when a startup’s founders move to a major technology company while the startup’s product remains separate.
In 2025, an Arizona Attorney General’s Office letter signed by 44 state attorneys general addressed predatory or sexualized AI interactions with children and included Google and Character Technologies among the companies contacted. That coalition activity signals broader state scrutiny, but it is not a finding that every company named violated the law.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesQuick Recap
What is established—and what is not
| Established in the public record | Not established by the available reports |
|---|---|
| Texas announced a 2024 privacy-and-safety investigation and a 2025 deceptive-mental-health-marketing investigation involving Character.AI. | That Character.AI violated Texas law or that the Texas investigations have reached a final conclusion. |
| Parents’ lawsuits allege sexualized, emotionally abusive or dangerous chatbot interactions involving minors. | That every alleged interaction occurred as described, or that the allegations represent a measured share of all users. |
| Google hired Character.AI’s co-founders and was named in related litigation; Google says it did not create, design or manage the app. | That Google is legally responsible for Character.AI’s alleged conduct. |
| Several cases were reported to be covered by settlement agreements in principle in January 2026, with terms undisclosed and approval required at that time. | The final terms or ultimate court disposition after that report. |
| Character.AI has announced parental controls and teen safeguards. | Independent proof that those safeguards work in practice. |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
