Wisconsin became the latest state to put its name on a legal filing accusing Character.AI of exposing children and other users to “serious safety risks,” joining a sprawling, bipartisan coalition of attorneys general that moved this week to intervene in the bankruptcy case of Character Technologies, Inc., the company behind the popular companion-chatbot app. The Wisconsin Department of Justice announced on October 16, 2026 that it had filed a notice in the Character.AI bankruptcy proceedings, asking the court to lock in consumer protections before any sale of the company or its assets goes through.
The filing does not create a new lawsuit. Instead, it is a formal notice inserted into an active bankruptcy docket, a legal maneuver state regulators are increasingly using to attach conditions to corporate sales before a buyer ever signs a check. For Character.AI, a platform that has spent two years fending off scrutiny tied to a 2024 wrongful-death lawsuit, the timing could not be worse: the company is trying to find a buyer for its business or assets while roughly three dozen attorneys general are telling a bankruptcy judge that the platform’s safety record cannot simply be inherited by whoever writes the biggest check.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What Wisconsin’s DOJ Actually Filed
According to the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s press release, the state is “joining a coalition of state attorneys general in filing a notice in the bankruptcy proceedings” of Character Technologies, Inc. The notice raises concerns about the company’s safety and privacy practices and asks the bankruptcy court to build in protections for children and other consumers in the event the business, its technology, or its user data is sold.
That distinction matters. A notice filed in bankruptcy proceedings is not the same as a new civil complaint. It does not, on its own, demand damages or admit new allegations into a courtroom. What it does is put the bankruptcy judge, Character Technologies, and any prospective buyer on record: the states are watching, and they want enforceable commitments on data handling, age verification, and chatbot safety features written into whatever deal eventually closes. Wisconsin Watch has separately tracked the state’s broader push to regulate artificial intelligence, a sign that this filing fits into a longer-running effort inside the Wisconsin DOJ rather than a one-off reaction to a single news cycle.
The filing concerned private chatbot conversations involving both children and adults, including sensitive details about mental health, relationships, and emotional struggles that users had shared with the Character.AI platform. That is the crux of the states’ argument: once a company has collected years of intimate conversational data from minors, a bankruptcy sale cannot be treated as a routine asset transfer. The data itself, the states argue, carries risk that needs to survive the transaction.
Attorney General Kaul’s Warning to AI Chatbot Companies
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul framed the filing as a baseline expectation rather than a novel demand. “Companies that gather sensitive personal data must protect that data,” Kaul said in the DOJ’s statement. He went further on the specific risks of conversational AI products, stating that “companies with AI chatbots must ensure that they have adequate protections in place for users’ safety and privacy,” according to the same release from his office. Ground News, which aggregated coverage of the filing across outlets, listed the statement among the clearest signals yet that state regulators view chatbot safety as a consumer-protection issue, not just a product-design choice.
Those two lines capture the dual concern running through the filing: privacy (what happens to years of sensitive chatbot transcripts after a sale) and safety (whether the product itself, as designed, adequately protects children interacting with it). Kaul’s office has not filed a standalone lawsuit against Character Technologies. The bankruptcy notice is a narrower, more surgical tool, and it reflects a strategy multiple state AG offices appear to be coordinating on simultaneously rather than racing to court individually.
The 2024 Wrongful-Death Case That Started the Scrutiny
Wisconsin’s filing traces back to a 2024 wrongful-death lawsuit that first pulled Character.AI into the national conversation about chatbot safety for minors. The lawsuit alleged that Character.AI chatbots fostered an emotionally and sexually exploitative relationship with a child, reinforced his suicidal thoughts, and ultimately contributed to his death by suicide. Several states, Wisconsin among them, opened their own investigations into the company’s practices after that case became public.
Megan Garcia, the mother who brought that case, has described the product in blunt terms. “I want them to understand that this is a platform that the designers chose to put out without proper guardrails, safety measures or testing, and it is a product that is designed to keep our kids addicted and to manipulate them,” Garcia said, according to CNN’s reporting on the case. Character.AI responded to the litigation at the time by pointing to safety changes it had already made. A company spokesperson told CNN that “we take the safety of our users very seriously, and our Trust and Safety team has implemented numerous new safety measures over the past six months, including a pop-up directing users to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline that is triggered by terms of self-harm or suicidal ideation.”
That exchange, from late 2024, set the template for everything that followed: plaintiffs and regulators alleging the platform was built and shipped without adequate guardrails, and the company pointing to incremental safety patches added after the fact. Two years later, that same tension is now playing out inside a bankruptcy courtroom instead of a product-liability courtroom.
Why Regulators Say Voluntary Safety Steps Aren’t Enough
Character Technologies has taken voluntary steps to restrict minors’ access to certain chatbot features, a point the states themselves acknowledge in their filings. But the coalition’s core argument is that those measures were incomplete, could be circumvented or reversed by a future purchaser, and were never compulsory in the first place. In other words: a safety feature a company chooses to add can be a safety feature a new owner chooses to remove, unless a court or consent agreement makes it binding.
That is the practical mechanism the states are trying to engineer through the bankruptcy notice. Rather than wait for a buyer to take over Character.AI’s technology and user base and then separately sue over how that buyer handles minors’ data, the coalition wants the conditions attached now, while the court still has leverage over the sale itself. It echoes the argument Anthropic has made to lawmakers in its own push for a federal AI safety bill: that voluntary industry commitments need a legal backstop to be reliable. Dominic Perella, Character.AI’s interim chief executive, has characterized the broader backlash as part of a familiar pattern for new technology. “Every time a new kind of entertainment has come along … there have been concerns about safety, and people have had to work through that and figure out how best to address safety,” Perella said, according to a report logged in the AI Incident Database.
Inside the 40-State Coalition
Wisconsin is not acting alone. Multiple state attorney general offices, including those in California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, issued nearly identical announcements this week confirming they had joined the same bankruptcy filing against Character Technologies, describing a broad, bipartisan coalition of roughly 40 attorneys general spanning both Democratic- and Republican-led states. That breadth is notable in an era when state AG offices frequently split along party lines on tech policy; chatbot safety for children appears to be one of the few issues pulling both sides into the same filing.
| State AG Office | Action Confirmed | Date Announced | Stated Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 16, 2026 | Child safety and data protection |
| California | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 15-16, 2026 | Consumer protections in potential sale |
| New York | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 14, 2026 | Protecting children and consumers |
| Massachusetts | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 14, 2026 | Consumer protections in bankruptcy |
| Michigan | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 15, 2026 | Consumer protections in bankruptcy |
| Minnesota | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 15, 2026 | Protecting children and consumers |
| Connecticut | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 14, 2026 | Consumer protections for sensitive data |
| Pennsylvania | Joined bankruptcy notice | October 15, 2026 | Protecting sensitive consumer information |
Each office framed its participation around the same two pillars Kaul cited: safeguarding children’s access to chatbot features and ensuring that sensitive personal data collected during years of private conversations does not simply pass to a new owner with fewer restrictions. None of the individual press releases reviewed disclosed a specific dollar figure tied to the bankruptcy sale, a settlement demand, or a user count for Character.AI, underscoring that this filing is about setting conditions rather than extracting a payout.
Character.AI’s Bankruptcy, Explained
Character Technologies, Inc. is the company behind Character.AI, a platform that lets users create and converse with AI-generated personas built on large language models. The states’ notice was filed directly into the company’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, which raise the possibility that Character.AI’s business, underlying technology, or user data could be sold to a new owner. The attorneys general argue that any such transaction needs enforceable guardrails attached, since the alternative is a buyer inheriting a platform’s safety reputation, its liabilities, and its trove of sensitive chatbot transcripts without being bound by the limited restrictions Character Technologies had already put in place.
Our previous coverage of the Character.AI bankruptcy and what happens to user data walked through the mechanics of what a Chapter 11-style sale process typically means for a tech company’s data assets. This week’s multistate filing effectively tries to answer the question that coverage raised: whether anyone with legal standing would step in before a sale closes to argue for the users whose conversations are now, in effect, inventory on a bankruptcy balance sheet.
A Pattern, Not an Isolated Filing
The Character.AI bankruptcy notice lands in the same month that eight state attorneys general, including those in Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, West Virginia, and Nebraska, filed coordinated lawsuits against OpenAI on October 14, 2026, alleging the company failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect children and other vulnerable users on ChatGPT, according to reporting from Bloomberg Law. Tech Insider covered that wave of litigation in detail in our report on the eight-state lawsuit against OpenAI over ChatGPT’s harm to minors.
Those OpenAI lawsuits build on an earlier action out of Florida, where Attorney General James Uthmeier reportedly sued OpenAI in June 2026, alleging the company knowingly released an unsafe product. Taken together with the Character.AI bankruptcy filing, the picture emerging in October 2026 is one of state attorneys general, across both parties, treating AI chatbot safety for minors as a priority enforcement area rather than a hypothetical future problem.
Historical Context: How Chatbot Safety Became a Legal Flashpoint
Character.AI launched in 2021, built by former Google AI researchers who left to start a company focused on persona-driven conversational agents. The app grew quickly among teenagers and young adults, who used it to build ongoing relationships with fictional, celebrity-inspired, or entirely original AI characters. That growth outpaced the industry’s development of age-verification tooling, content moderation for emotionally intense conversations, and crisis-response features for users expressing self-harm or suicidal ideation.
The 2024 wrongful-death lawsuit changed the conversation from a product-design critique into a legal liability question, and it triggered the state investigations that have now culminated in this week’s bankruptcy filing. The Wisconsin Law Journal has tracked a parallel rise in AI-related legal questions reaching state courts, from workplace disputes to family-court filings, suggesting Wisconsin’s regulators are responding to AI accountability questions on multiple fronts at once, not just chatbot safety. In the two years between that lawsuit and this filing, Character.AI added teen-specific restrictions, but it was never compelled by a court or regulator to make those restrictions permanent or irreversible. That gap, between what a company does voluntarily and what it is legally bound to keep doing, is precisely the gap the 40-state coalition is now trying to close before ownership of the platform potentially changes hands.
Competitive Landscape: Where Other AI Companion Apps Stand
Character.AI is not the only companion-style chatbot product facing scrutiny, and the regulatory pressure building around it has implications for the broader AI companion category, including apps like Replika and Nomi AI. Tech Insider’s earlier comparison of Replika, Character.AI, and Nomi AI noted meaningful differences in how each platform approaches monetization and persona design, but all three sit in the same regulatory blast radius: products built around emotionally immersive, long-running conversations with vulnerable users, including minors.
| Company | Current Legal/Regulatory Exposure (as of Oct. 2026) | Known Public Response |
|---|---|---|
| Character Technologies (Character.AI) | 40-state bankruptcy notice; 2024 wrongful-death lawsuit | Added teen-safety features; cited ongoing Trust and Safety work |
| OpenAI | 8-state coordinated lawsuit (Oct. 14, 2026); prior Florida AG suit (June 2026) | Disputed claims of inadequate safeguards |
| Replika | No bankruptcy or coordinated multistate action confirmed in current filings | Markets itself around companionship use cases |
| Nomi AI | No bankruptcy or coordinated multistate action confirmed in current filings | Positions product around less restrictive persona design |
General-purpose assistants face a related, if less acute, version of this scrutiny; Tech Insider’s comparison of ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini found each vendor handling safety guardrails differently, underscoring that chatbot safety design is not standardized across the industry. What distinguishes Character.AI’s situation from its competitors right now is not necessarily worse underlying safety practices, but the fact that its bankruptcy process has handed regulators a unique legal lever: a live court proceeding where the company’s future ownership is already up for negotiation. That is a structural opportunity state AGs do not have against a financially stable competitor, and it helps explain why the coalition moved so quickly and in such large numbers specifically on this filing.
Market Impact: What This Means for a Potential Sale
For any company considering acquiring Character Technologies’ business, technology, or user data through the bankruptcy process, this week’s filing raises the cost and complexity of that deal. A buyer now has to assume that whatever it acquires may come with court-imposed or negotiated conditions on how it can use historical chatbot data, what age-verification systems it must maintain, and what safety features it cannot simply switch off after closing.
That dynamic tends to depress what a distressed AI asset is worth, because it narrows the pool of buyers willing to accept ongoing compliance obligations tied to a user base that includes minors. It also sets something of a template: any company in the AI companion space that later ends up in financial distress should now expect state regulators to treat its bankruptcy docket as an enforcement opportunity, not just a creditor-recovery process. For investors watching the broader AI sector, that is a meaningful signal that consumer-facing AI products carrying sensitive personal data are being underwritten with a new category of legal risk that did not exist in a comparable form even twelve months ago.
The Broader Regulatory Pattern Taking Shape in 2026
Step back from Character.AI specifically, and October 2026 looks like a turning point for state-level AI chatbot regulation. In the span of roughly a week, the public record shows a 40-attorney-general coalition intervening in a bankruptcy case, eight states suing OpenAI directly, and a prior Florida lawsuit against OpenAI from earlier in the year all converging around the same core claim: that chatbot companies have not done enough to protect children and vulnerable users, and that voluntary safety commitments are not a substitute for enforceable ones.
Wisconsin Watch’s reporting on state lawmakers’ broader AI regulation plans suggests this enforcement activity is running in parallel with legislative efforts, not replacing them. Attorneys general appear to be using the tools available right now, lawsuits, bankruptcy interventions, and public pressure, while state legislatures separately consider rules that would make some of these protections mandatory going forward rather than case-by-case.
What a Future Buyer Would Need to Commit To
Based on the language in the state filings, a prospective buyer of Character Technologies’ assets would likely need to address several points directly: how it verifies user age, what happens to historical chat transcripts involving minors, whether existing teen-safety restrictions remain in place and become contractually binding rather than optional, and how sensitive mental-health-related conversational data is stored, retained, or deleted going forward. None of the released filings specify binding terms yet; that is effectively what the states are asking the bankruptcy court to help negotiate.
How to Report AI Chatbot Safety Concerns
For readers wondering where to direct concerns about an AI chatbot product’s safety or data practices, state attorney general offices generally accept consumer complaints through dedicated online portals. A general-purpose reference format looks like this:
State Attorney General Consumer Complaint (general format)
1. Visit your state AG office's official .gov website
2. Look for "File a Complaint" or "Consumer Protection"
3. Select category: Technology / Privacy / AI Products
4. Include: platform name, date of incident, screenshots if available
5. Submit and retain your confirmation number for follow-upComplaints filed this way do not guarantee an investigation, but according to the pattern seen in the Character.AI case, consumer complaints and wrongful-death litigation were part of what originally triggered the multistate investigation that led to this week’s bankruptcy filing.
Predictions: Where This Case and AI Chatbot Regulation Go Next
- More states beyond the current roughly 40-member coalition are likely to add their names to the Character.AI bankruptcy notice or file parallel statements in the coming weeks, given how low the legal and political cost of joining appears to be.
- Any confirmed buyer for Character Technologies’ assets will probably need to publicly commit to specific, binding safety and data-retention terms before a bankruptcy court approves the sale, rather than relying on voluntary company policy.
- The parallel wave of state lawsuits against OpenAI will likely expand to additional states beyond the current eight, especially if the Character.AI bankruptcy coalition continues to demonstrate bipartisan appetite for chatbot safety enforcement.
- Expect state legislatures, building on the investigative groundwork described by Wisconsin Watch, to introduce AI chatbot child-safety bills in 2027 sessions that attempt to make some of these bankruptcy-notice demands into standing law rather than one-time court filings.
- Other companion-chatbot platforms, including Replika and Nomi AI, will likely face increased pressure to proactively publicize age-verification and crisis-response features before regulators force the issue through litigation, following the template set by Character.AI’s experience.
What Happens Next in the Bankruptcy Court
The immediate next step is procedural: the bankruptcy court overseeing Character Technologies’ case will need to consider the coalition’s notice as part of any sale-approval process. Nothing in the public filings reviewed indicates a hearing date, a named buyer, or a timeline for resolution. What is clear is that the states have put their position on the record early, before any deal is finalized, rather than waiting to challenge a completed transaction after the fact, a sequencing choice that gives them more leverage over the eventual terms.
Character Technologies has not issued a new public statement specifically responding to this week’s coalition filing, based on currently available releases. The company’s past public position, as expressed in 2024 through its spokesperson’s comments to CNN, has emphasized ongoing safety investments rather than disputing the need for any safeguards at all.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Wisconsin’s Department of Justice actually file against Character.AI?
Wisconsin joined a coalition of state attorneys general in filing a notice in the bankruptcy proceedings of Character Technologies, Inc., asking the court to ensure consumer and child-safety protections survive any sale of the company’s business or assets.
Is this a new lawsuit against Character.AI?
No. It is a notice filed within an existing bankruptcy case, not a standalone civil lawsuit. It is designed to influence the terms of any future sale rather than to seek damages directly.
How many states joined the coalition against Character.AI?
Multiple state attorney general offices, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, each confirmed participation in a broad, bipartisan coalition described by several of those offices as including roughly 40 attorneys general.
What triggered the original investigation into Character.AI?
Several states began investigating Character.AI after a 2024 wrongful-death lawsuit alleged that the platform’s chatbots fostered an exploitative relationship with a child, reinforced his suicidal thoughts, and contributed to his death by suicide.
Has Character.AI made any safety changes already?
Yes. Character Technologies has taken voluntary steps to restrict minors’ access to certain chatbot features. The state coalition argues those measures are incomplete and could be reversed by a future owner since they are not legally binding.
Why does a bankruptcy case matter for chatbot safety regulation?
Because Character Technologies is reportedly exploring a sale of its business or assets through bankruptcy proceedings, regulators see the sale process as a rare opportunity to attach binding safety and data-handling conditions before a new owner takes over.
Is this related to the state lawsuits against OpenAI?
They are separate legal actions but part of the same broader trend. Eight states sued OpenAI directly on October 14, 2026 over alleged inadequate safeguards for minors on ChatGPT, while the Character.AI action is a bankruptcy notice rather than a new lawsuit.
What happens if Character Technologies’ assets are sold?
The coalition wants any buyer to be bound by enforceable protections covering children’s access to chatbot features and the handling of sensitive user data, rather than simply inheriting Character.AI’s current voluntary safety practices.
