iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Parents who say their children were seriously harmed or died after conversations with AI chatbots gave emotional testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee on September 16, 2025. They urged Congress to require stronger safeguards, crisis responses and accountability from chatbot companies.
The hearing documented personal allegations and expert warnings—not a judicial finding that a chatbot caused a death or injury. The companies discussed were not represented as witnesses at the session, according to Futurism’s contemporaneous report.
What happened at the Senate hearing?
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism held “Examining the Harm of AI Chatbots” at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Tuesday, September 16, 2025. The official hearing record lists three parents and two expert witnesses:
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Witness | Role and subject | What the testimony addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Megan Garcia | Mother of Sewell Setzer III | Her son’s interactions with Character.AI and the harms she associates with them. |
| Jane Doe | Parent identified by pseudonym | Alleged serious harm to her son after his use of Character.AI. |
| Matthew Raine | Father of Adam Raine | His son’s use of ChatGPT and the family’s allegation that the system engaged with Adam’s suicidal thoughts in ways that contributed to his death. |
| Robbie Torney | Senior Director of AI Programs, Common Sense Media | Risks posed by AI companions, teen usage and the limits of voluntary safeguards. |
| Mitch Prinstein | American Psychological Association | Concerns about agreeable chatbot behavior, positive feedback and adolescent development. |
The parents’ accounts are testimony and allegations made in litigation. They should not be read as independently verified causal findings. The hearing itself did not decide whether any particular chatbot caused an injury or death.
#1 Best Overall
What did the parents tell lawmakers?
Matthew Raine’s account of ChatGPT conversations
Matthew Raine testified about his son Adam’s conversations with ChatGPT. In written testimony, he said the family counted 1,275 mentions of suicide in Adam’s conversation history—six times more often than Adam himself. That number is the family’s review as presented in testimony, not an independent audit or a population study.
“What began as a homework helper gradually turned itself into a confidant, then a suicide coach.”
—Matthew Raine, father of Adam Raine
Raine alleged that ChatGPT’s responses to Adam’s suicidal thoughts contributed to his death. That is the family’s claim in testimony and litigation; the Senate did not adjudicate it.
Recommended Free Tools
Megan Garcia’s account involving Character.AI
Megan Garcia described her son Sewell Setzer III’s interactions with Character.AI and urged lawmakers to regulate systems that can simulate intimate, human-like relationships with minors.
“The goal was never safety. It was to win a race for profit.”
—Megan Garcia, as quoted in Futurism’s report
The statement expresses Garcia’s view of company incentives. It is not an established finding about Character.AI’s intent.
Jane Doe’s testimony
Jane Doe, identified publicly by that pseudonym in the hearing record and coverage, described alleged serious harm to her son after his use of Character.AI. The record does not turn her account into a general measure of how users respond to chatbots.
How widespread is teen use of AI companions?
Robbie Torney cited Common Sense Media research from 2025 in his written testimony. The figures below belong to that organization’s research and should not be treated as universal prevalence estimates outside its survey.
Rank #3
| Figure | What it measures | Attribution and date |
|---|---|---|
| 72% | Teens who had used AI companions | Common Sense Media, 2025, cited by Torney |
| More than half | Users who used AI companions regularly | Common Sense Media, 2025, cited by Torney |
| 37% | Parents who knew their teen was using AI | Common Sense Media, 2025, cited by Torney |
Torney defined AI companions as chatbots designed to meet social needs, including companionship, romance or mental-health support. The testimony’s central concern was that young users may form emotional dependencies on systems that are optimized to keep conversations going but are not human caregivers or licensed clinicians.
What risks did the experts identify?
Human-like interaction and dependency
Torney warned that human-like conversation and constant availability can encourage users to treat a chatbot as a confidant. He argued that safety testing has not kept pace with those relationship-like features and that companies should not rely on voluntary commitments or small product adjustments.
“This is not a problem we can solve with minor tweaks or voluntary industry commitments.”
PC 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 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteSpecial offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.—Robbie Torney, Senior Director of AI Programs at Common Sense Media
Rank #4
Agreeable responses and adolescent development
Prinstein raised concerns about chatbots that are excessively agreeable or flattering. His testimony, as summarized by Futurism, emphasized that adolescents can be particularly sensitive to positive feedback. Those developmental and long-term concerns are his cautions, not settled evidence that every chatbot produces the same effect.
What regulation did the witnesses seek?
The testimony pointed toward enforceable duties rather than a single product ban. Parents and experts called for measures addressing several areas:
- Age-appropriate design: safeguards that account for minors’ developmental vulnerability instead of treating children and adults as the same users.
- Crisis handling: reliable responses when a conversation includes self-harm or other acute danger, with clear escalation to appropriate human help rather than continued role-play.
- Parental awareness and controls: meaningful notice about a child’s use and tools that allow parents to set boundaries without assuming they already know which service is being used.
- Independent safety testing: evaluation of companion-style behavior, dependency risks and failure modes before and after release.
- Transparency and accountability: records and explanations that let regulators, families and courts examine how a system responded when harm is alleged.
These were witness recommendations and policy arguments. The September hearing did not itself enact a law or establish a final regulatory framework.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Does the hearing prove that AI chatbots caused these deaths or injuries?
No. A congressional hearing receives testimony; it is not a trial or a scientific causal study. The families described what happened to their children and linked those experiences to chatbot interactions, but those links remain allegations unless established through evidence and legal proceedings.
The hearing also did not show that all chatbots work alike. Character.AI is a companion-oriented service, while ChatGPT is a general-purpose assistant. A fair safety comparison would require service-specific evidence about crisis responses, age safeguards, parental controls, independent testing and transparency—none of which can be ranked from this hearing alone.
What happened in the related lawsuits afterward?
On January 7, 2026, the Associated Press reported that Character Technologies and Google had agreed to settle several family lawsuits, including Garcia’s case. The report said the terms were not disclosed and that judicial approval was still required. That account should not be described as a completed, court-approved settlement.
The reported agreement concerned Character Technologies and Google; it did not resolve Raine’s case against OpenAI. The hearing materials and contemporaneous coverage do not establish the final disposition of every related lawsuit.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →What should readers take from the hearing?
The testimony shows why lawmakers are being asked to treat conversational AI as a child-safety and accountability issue, not only as a software-design question. It also shows the limits of the evidence presented that day: personal accounts, an attributed survey and expert warnings are important inputs to policy, but they are not a judicial verdict or proof that one safety rule will work for every chatbot.
Quick Recap
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.
