A jury has awarded WhatsApp $167 million in punitive damages in a case the company brought against Israel-based NSO Group for exploiting a software vulnerability that hijacked the phones of thousands of users.
The verdict, reached Tuesday, comes as a major victory not just for Meta-owned WhatsApp but also for privacy- and security-rights advocates who have long criticized the practices of NSO and other exploit sellers. The jury also awarded WhatsApp $444 million in compensatory damages.
Clickless exploit
WhatsApp sued NSO in 2019 for an attack that targeted roughly 1,400 mobile phones belonging to attorneys, journalists, human-rights activists, political dissidents, diplomats, and senior foreign government officials. NSO, which works on behalf of governments and law enforcement authorities in various countries, exploited a critical WhatsApp vulnerability that allowed it to install NSO’s proprietary spyware Pegasus on iOS and Android devices. The clickless exploit worked by placing a call to a target’s app. A target did not have to answer the call to be infected.
“Today’s verdict in WhatsApp’s case is an important step forward for privacy and security as the first victory against the development and use of illegal spyware that threatens the safety and privacy of everyone,” WhatsApp said in a statement. “Today, the jury’s decision to force NSO, a notorious foreign spyware merchant, to pay damages is a critical deterrent to this malicious industry against their illegal acts aimed at American companies and the privacy and security of the people we serve.”
NSO created WhatsApp accounts in 2018 and used them a year later to initiate calls that exploited the critical vulnerability on phones, which, among others, included 100 members of “civil society” from 20 countries, according to an investigation research group Citizen Lab performed on behalf of WhatsApp. The calls passed through WhatsApp servers and injected malicious code into the memory of targeted devices. The targeted phones would then use WhatsApp servers to connect to malicious servers maintained by NSO.
They say that with age comes wisdom, so it should come as no surprise that on the eve of Alfa Romeo’s 115th anniversary, the company that originally made its name competing in endurance races like the Targa Florio and Mille Miglia with flame-spitting sportscars is currently looking to increase its market share with a sensible, high-riding crossover.
Produced in Stellantis’ Pomigliano d’Arco assembly plant near Naples, Italy, alongside its mechanical twin the Dodge Hornet, the Tonale plug-in hybrid, introduced last year, helped the Italian automaker find a foothold at a time when many of the auto conglomerate’s brands have been struggling. Now, a non-hybrid version of Alfa’s answer to models like the BMW X1 and Audi Q3 has joined the fray, sporting turbocharged power, standard all-wheel drive, and the same sharp styling at a significantly lower base price. But old habits die hard, and as I discovered over the course of a few days with the latest iteration of the Tonale, even Alfa Romeo’s most pragmatic offerings have their fair share of quirks.
The new base model comes with a double overhead-cam 2.0 L inline four-cylinder engine producing 268 hp (200 kW) and 295 lb-ft (400 Nm) of torque. The turbocharged mill is paired with a nine-speed automatic transmission and an all-wheel drive system that can send up to fifty percent of the available torque to the rear wheels. While those numbers are down a bit compared to the Tonale Hybrid, at 3,715 lbs (1,685 kg), the 2.0 L Turbo is more than 400 lbs ( 181 kg) lighter than the PHEV model.
Alfa’s iconic goofy tooth-grin. Alfa Romeo
The 2.0 L Turbo offers more precise handling as a result, while its mid-five-second sprint to 60 mph (98 km/h) is similar to the hybrid’s, despite the latter’s power advantage. EPA fuel economy figures of 21 mpg city (11.2 L/100 km), 29 mpg highway (8.11 L/100 km), and 24 mpg combined (9.8 L/100 km) indicate that the 2.0 L Turbo is thirstier, though. On a drive from LA to Palm Springs and back—which included a bit of canyon driving along the way—I saw an average of about 26 mpg (9 L/100 km).
Tesla is in deep trouble in Europe. The electric vehicle maker, which once dominated EV sales in the region, is facing sales declines of more than 50 percent in France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and the UK. Sales in Germany weren’t quite as bad—they fell by 46 percent in April, with slightly smaller decreases in Portugal and Spain. Only Italy and Norway saw any kind of sales growth.
The headwinds were already looking unfavorable for Tesla even before CEO Elon Musk threw his lot in with Donald Trump and his authoritarian makeover of the US government. A small and outdated product portfolio was already looking stale compared to the influx of EVs from Chinese brands and European automakers, but Musk’s hard-right turn and the US government’s ongoing antagonism toward the rest of the world has soured the brand entirely. And a recent styling refresh for the Model Y has failed to arrest the slide.
The UK has been one of Tesla’s biggest markets in Europe, and it’s seeing something of an EV boom, with 8.1 percent more BEVs registered in April 2025 than the year before, even as overall car sales have dropped by 10.4 percent year on year. But Tesla’s sales fell by 62 percent—the automaker registered just 512 cars all month. For context, 120,331 new cars were registered in the UK last month, of which 24,558 were BEVs.
The design looks pretty similar to the existing 13-inch Surface Pro overall but with some significant tweaks. The 12-inch Surface still supports the Slim Pen and other Surface styluses, but there’s now a magnet on the back of the tablet that the pen can be stuck to for storage, rather than a divot on the keyboard. The tablet still has a pair of USB-C ports, each of which supports 10 Gbps USB 3.2 speeds rather than full USB 4. But the Surface Connect port is gone, and because it’s physically smaller, the new Surface Pro isn’t compatible with any of the keyboard accessories made for past Surface Pro or Surface Go tablets.
But the biggest downgrade is a fundamental change to the tablet’s design. The 12-inch Surface Pro’s keyboard case (still a separate purchase, frustratingly) lies flat against whatever you have the tablet sitting on, whether that’s a desk, a table, or your lap. If the surface your Surface is resting on is level and stable, that’s mostly fine. If the surface is soft or uneven, like a lap or a couch, this introduces extra instability and floppiness, and your keyboard will wobble around more as you type on it.
Both of the new Surface devices being announced today. Note that the Surface Pro’s keyboard sits flat against the table, rather than folding up against the bottom of the screen. Credit: Microsoft
This is the same approach used as the first two generations of Surface Pro (and the ill-starred Surface RT), and it was also a perennial complaint about those designs from reviewers and users. In 2014, the Surface Pro 3 tweaked the keyboard design so that the top of it would fold flat against the bottom of the device’s screen, giving the keyboard some rigidity and stability that persisted no matter what it was resting on. All subsequent Surface keyboards, including those for the tiny 10.5-inch Surface Go, used the same design, until this one.
The iPad keyboard case I use—a Logitech Combo Touch Keyboard Folio with a built-in trackpad and kickstand—also uses the flop-against-the-table design, which hasn’t been the end of the world. But solving this problem was a major turning point in the evolution of the Surface Pro, and it’s frustrating to see that signature improvement undone here.
The Trump administration filed an emergency application on Friday asking the Supreme Court to restore DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration records. A lower-court order that prohibited DOGE’s access is causing “irreparable harm to the executive branch” and thwarting DOGE’s attempts to “eliminate waste and fraud,” US Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the appeal.
“The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,” Sauer told the Supreme Court. The preliminary injunction that is currently in place halted “the Executive Branch’s critically important efforts to improve its information-technology infrastructure and eliminate waste,” the brief said.
The appeal was lodged in a case filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Alliance for Retired Americans; and American Federation of Teachers. Chief Justice John Roberts asked them to file a response to the US by May 12.
In March, the plaintiffs obtained an order that required the Social Security Administration (SSA) to block DOGE’s access to records. US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander’s order said the DOGE entity created by President Donald Trump “is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion.”
Trump admin lost at appeals court
Hollander ordered the SSA to cut off DOGE’s access and ruled that Elon Musk and other DOGE members must “disgorge and delete all non-anonymized PII [personally identifiable information] data in their possession or under their control.” The District of Maryland judge found that Social Security officials “provided members of the SSA DOGE Team with unbridled access to the personal and private data of millions of Americans, including but not limited to Social Security numbers, medical records, mental health records, hospitalization records, drivers’ license numbers, bank and credit card information, tax information, income history, work history, birth and marriage certificates, and home and work addresses.”
New episodes of season 2 of The Last of Us are premiering on HBO every Sunday night, and Ars’ Kyle Orland (who’s played the games) and Andrew Cunningham (who hasn’t) will be talking about them here after they air. While these recaps don’t delve into every single plot point of the episode, there are obviously heavy spoilers contained within, so go watch the episode first if you want to go in fresh.
Kyle: We start this episode from the perspective of a band of highly armed FEDRA agents in 2018 Seattle, shooting the shit in a transport that somehow still has usable gasoline. Maybe it’s just the political moment we’re in, but I was not quite emotionally prepared for these militarized characters in my post-apocalyptic escape show to start casually using “voters” as an ironic signifier for regular people.
“LOL, like we’d ever let them vote, amirite?”
Andrew: We’ve spent so little time with FEDRA—the post-collapse remnant of what had once been the US government—since the very opening episodes of the show that you can forget exactly why nearly every other individual and organization in the show’s world hates it and wants nothing to do with it. But here’s a reminder for us: casual cruelty, performed by ignorant fascists.
Of course as soon as you see and hear Jeffrey Wright, you know he’s going to be A Guy (he’s an HBO alum from Boardwalk Empire and Westworld, among many, many other film, TV, vocal, and stage performances). He just as casually betrays and blows up the transport full of jumped-up FEDRA jarheads, which is a clear prestige TV storytelling signifier. Here is a Man With A Code, but also a Man To Be Feared.
Kyle: Yeah, Isaac’s backstory was only broadly hinted at in the games, so getting to see this big “Who This Character Is” moment in the show was pretty effective.
What I found less effective was Ellie playing a very able A-Ha cover when she discovers the abandoned guitar room. In the game it serves as a welcome change of pace from a lot of frenetic action, and a good excuse for an endearing guitar-playing mini-game. Here it felt like it just kind of dragged on, with a lot of awkward dwelling on close-ups of Dina’s creepily enamored face.
I’ll…. be….. gone….. in a day or… twooooooooo.
Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
I’ll…. be….. gone….. in a day or… twooooooooo. Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
Andrew: You know what, though, I do appreciate that the show at least made an effort to explain why this 30-year-old guitar was still in pristine condition. I don’t instantly buy that the silica gel packets (which Ellie, wisely, does not eat) in the guitar case would have lasted for that long, but at least she didn’t pull a mossy guitar straight off the wall and start tuning it up. Those strings are gonna corrode! That neck is gonna warp!
I do also think the show (and the game, I guess, picking up your context clues) got away with picking one of the goofiest songs they possibly could that would still read as “soulful and emotionally resonant” when played solo on acoustic guitar. But I suppose that’s always been the power of that particular instrument.
Kyle: Both the game and the show have leaned heavily on the ’80s nostalgia that Joel passed on to Ellie, and as a child of the ’80s, I’ll be damned if I said it doesn’t work on me on that level.
Andrew: It’s also, for what it’s worth, exactly what a beginner-to-intermediate guitar player is going to know how to do. If I find a guitar during an apocalypse, all people are going to be able to get out of me are mid-2000s radio singles with easy chord progressions. It’s too bad that society didn’t last long enough in this reality to produce “Boulevard of Broken Dreams.”
Kyle: Not to cut short “Guitar Talk,” but the show cuts it off with a creepy scene of Isaac talking about high-end cookware to an initially unseen companion on the floor. The resulting scene of torture is, for my money, way worse than most anything we’re exposed to in the games—and these are games that are not exactly squeamish about showing scenes of torture and extreme violence!
Felt to me like they’re taking advantage of HBO’s reputation for graphic content just because they could, here…
Andrew: Definitely gratuitous! But not totally without storytelling utility. I do think, if you’re setting Isaac up to be a mid-season miniboss on the road to the Dramatic Confrontation with Abby, that you’ve got to make it especially clear that he is capable of really nasty things. Sure, killing a truckful of guys is ALSO bad, but they were guys that we as viewers are all supposed to hate. Torturing a defenseless man reinforces the perception of him as someone that Ellie and Dina do not want to meet, especially now that they’ve popped a couple of his guys.
Because Ellie and Dina have unwittingly wandered into the middle of a Seattle civil war of sorts, between Isaac and his militarized WLF members and the face-cutting cultists we briefly met in the middle of last episode. And while the WLF types do seem to have the cult outgunned, we are told here that WLF members are slowly defecting to the cult (rather than the other way around).
Welcome back to “Jeffrey Wright discusses cookware.” I’m Jeffrey Wright. Today on our program, we have a very special guest…
Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
Welcome back to “Jeffrey Wright discusses cookware.” I’m Jeffrey Wright. Today on our program, we have a very special guest… Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
Kyle: I will say I appreciated the surprisingly cogent history of the “chicken and egg games” beef between the two factions, as discussed between torturer and torture victim. Definitely a memorable bit of world-building.
But then we’re quickly back to the kind of infected attack scene that now seems practically contractually obligated to happen at least once an episode. At this point, I think these kinds of massive setpiece zombie battles would work better as a light seasoning than a thick sauce that just gets dumped on us almost every week.
Andrew: People in and from Seattle seem to have a unique gift for kicking up otherwise dormant swarms of infected! I know we’ll get back to it eventually, but I was more intrigued by the first episode’s reveal of more strategic infected that seemed to be retaining more of their human traits than I am by these screaming mindless hordes. Here, I think the tension is also ratcheted up artificially by Ellie’s weird escape strategy, which is to lead the two of them through a series of dead ends and cul-de-sacs before finally, barely, getting away.
But like you said, gotta have zombies on the zombie show! And it does finally make the “Dina finds out that Ellie is immune” shoe drop, though Dina doesn’t seem ready to think through any of the other implications of that reveal just yet. She has her own stuff going on!
Kyle: Yes, I’ve had to resist my inclination to do the remote equivalent of nudging you in the ribs to see if you had picked up on the potential “morning sickness” explanation of Dina’s frequent vomiting (which was hidden decently amid the “vomiting because of seeing horrifying gore” explanation).
Andrew: It does explain a couple of things! It does seem like a bit of a narrative shortcut to make Ellie extremely invested in Dina and whether she lives or dies, and given this show I am worried that this zygote is only going to be used to create more trauma for Ellie, rather than giving us a nuanced look at parenting during an apocalypse. But it is sweet to see how enthusiastically and immediately Ellie gets invested.
A question for you, while spoiling as little as you can: Are we still mostly just adapting the game at this point? You’d mentioned getting more Isaac backstory (sometimes the show expands on backstories well and sometimes it doesn’t), and some things have happened a bit out of order. But my impression is that we haven’t gotten a full departure a la the Nick Offerman episode from last season yet.
How do we keep getting into these messes?
Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
How do we keep getting into these messes? Credit: Warner Bros. Discovery
Kyle: At this point it’s kind of like a jazz riff on what happens in the game, with some bits copied note for note, some remixed and thrown into entirely different temporal locations, and some fresh new improv thrown in for good measure.
I’m definitely not a “the game is canon and you must interpret it literally” type of person, but the loose treatment is giving me a bit of whiplash. The reveal of Dina’s pregnancy, for instance, is not greeted with nearly as much immediate joy in the games. That said, the moment of joy Ellie and Dina do share here feels transplanted (in tone if nothing else) from an earlier game scene that the show had mostly skipped thus far. It’s like free association, man. Dig it!
The show also spends an inordinate amount of time discussing how pregnancy tests work in the post-apocalypse, which for me pushed past world-building and into overexplaining. It’s OK to just let stuff be sometimes, y’know?
Andrew: It’s jazz, man. It’s about the zombies you don’t kill.
However it’s been rearranged, I can still tell I’m watching a video game adaptation, because there are stealth kills and because important information is conveyed via messages and logos scrawled in blood on the walls. But I am still enjoying myself, and doing slightly less minute-to-minute missing of Joel than I did last episode. Slightly.
The episode ends with Ellie and Dina hearing the name of someone who has the same name as someone who knew Abby over a WLF walkie-talkie they nabbed, which gives them their next objective marker for Abby Quest. But they’ve got to cross an active war zone to get where they’re going (though I couldn’t tell from that distance whether we’re meant to be able to tell exactly who is fighting who at the moment). Guess I’ll have to wait and see!
Kyle: Personally, I’m hoping we see the moment where the newly out-and-proud bisexual Dina finally realizes “what’s the deal with all the rainbows.” Show your post-apocalyptic pride, girl!
The late Richard Parry-Jones, who rose to CTO over at rival Ford, had a similar take: vehicle dynamics matter.
“There are people that think no one can tell the difference, you know, and I’ve always said they absolutely can tell the difference. They don’t know what it is. And the structural feel of the car going down the road, you know, people might explain, ‘It feels like a vault.’ Well, I can tell you exactly what’s going on, physically, from the parts and the tuning, and it’s an outcome that we strive for,” Morris said.
Does it need to be electrified?
The addition of electrified powertrains has certainly been one of the biggest trends in motorsport over the past decade or so. Since F1 made hybrids mandatory in 2014, we’ve also seen hybridization come to IMSA and WEC’s prototypes, and most recently, IndyCar added a supercapacitor-based system. But it hasn’t been a one-way street; this year, both the World Rally Championship and the British Touring Car Championship have abandoned the hybrid systems they adopted just a few years ago.
Win on Sunday, sell on Monday, like concrete tech transfer, is much less of a thing in the early 21st century, but marketing remains a central reason for OEM involvement in the sport. I asked Morris if Cadillac would be endurance racing with the V-Series R if the LMdh ruleset didn’t require a hybrid system.
“I think it’s an interesting discussion because you know, current EVs—the development [needed] where you can really do lapping at the Nürburgring or lapping full laps and not one hot lap, then you’re done, there’s just going to have to be development, development iteration, iteration, and that’s what racing is,” Morris said.
While the mechanical specifications of the hybrid Cadillac (and its rivals) are locked down, software development is unfettered, and Morris is not the first competitor to tell me how important that development path is now. Battery cell chemistries and battery cooling are also very active research areas and will only get more important once Cadillac enters F1. At first, that will be with Ferrari engines in the back, but starting in 2029, the Cadillac team will use a powertrain designed in-house.
After several years of escalating AI hysteria, we are all familiar with Google’s desire to put Gemini in every one of its products. That can be annoying, but NotebookLM is not—this one actually works. NotebookLM, which helps you parse documents, videos, and more using Google’s advanced AI models, has been available on the web since 2023, but Google recently confirmed it would finally get an Android app. You can get a look at the app now, but it’s not yet available to install.
Until now, NotebookLM was only a website. You can visit it on your phone, but the interface is clunky compared to the desktop version. The arrival of the mobile app will change that. Google said it plans to release the app at Google I/O in late May, but the listing is live in the Play Store early. You can pre-register to be notified when the download is live, but you’ll have to tide yourself over with the screenshots for the time being.
NotebookLM relies on the same underlying technology as Google’s other chatbots and AI projects, but instead of a general purpose robot, NotebookLM is only concerned with the documents you upload. It can assimilate text files, websites, and videos, including multiple files and source types for a single agent. It has a hefty context window of 500,000 tokens and supports document uploads as large as 200MB. Google says this creates a queryable “AI expert” that can answer detailed questions and brainstorm ideas based on the source data.
CPB President Patricia Harrison suggested in a statement provided to Ars that these moves to block networks’ funding exceed Trump’s authority.
“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the president’s authority,” Harrison said. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government,” statutorily forbidding “any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.”
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger went further, calling the order “blatantly unlawful” in a statement provided to Ars.
“Issued in the middle of the night,” Trump’s order “threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming, as we have for the past 50-plus years,” Kerger said. “We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue to serve our member stations and all Americans.”
Rural communities need public media, orgs say
While Trump opposes NPR and PBS for promoting content that he disagrees with—criticizing segments on white privilege, gender identity, reparations, “fat phobia,” and abortion—the networks have defended their programming as unbiased and falling in line with Federal Communications Commission guidelines. Further, NPR reported that the networks’ “locally grounded content” currently reaches “more than 99 percent of the population at no cost,” providing not just educational fare and entertainment but also critical updates tied to local emergency and disaster response systems.
Cutting off funding, Kreger said last month, would have a “devastating impact” on rural communities, especially in parts of the country where NPR and PBS still serve as “the only source of news and emergency broadcasts,” NPR reported.
For example, Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, testified to Congress last month that his stations “provide potentially life-saving warnings and alerts that are crucial for Alaskans who face threats ranging from extreme weather to earthquakes, landslides, and even volcanoes.” Some of the smallest rural stations sometimes rely on CPB for about 50 percent of their funding, NPR reported.
After a federal court issued a scathing order Wednesday night that found Apple in “willful violation” of an injunction meant to allow iOS apps to provide alternate payment options, app developers are capitalizing on the moment. Spotify may be the quickest of them all.
Less than 24 hours after District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple had sought to thwart a 2021 injunction and engaged in an “obvious cover-up” around its actions, Spotify announced in a blog post that it had submitted an updated app to Apple. The updated app can show specific plan prices, link out to Spotify’s website for plan changes and purchases that avoid Apple’s 30 percent commission on in-app purchases, and display promotional offers, all of which were disallowed under Apple’s prior App Store rules.
Spotify’s post adds that Apple’s newly court-enforced policy “opens the door to other seamless buying opportunities that will directly benefit creators (think easy-to-purchase audiobooks).” Spotify posted on X (formerly Twitter) Friday morning that the updated app was approved by Apple. Apple made substantial modifications to its App Review Guidelines on Friday and emailed registered developers regarding the changes.
Tensions had been mounting at the company. Sales and profits were deteriorating rapidly. Musk was spending much of his time in Washington.
Around that time, Tesla’s board met with Musk for an update. Board members told him he needed to spend more time on Tesla, according to people familiar with the meeting. And he needed to say so publicly.
Musk didn’t push back.
Musk subsequently said in an April 22 call with investors that “starting next month, I’ll be allocating far more of my time to Tesla now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done.”
The Journal report said that after Musk’s public statement, the Tesla “board narrowed its focus to a major search firm, according to the people familiar with the discussions. The current status of the succession planning couldn’t be determined. It is also unclear if Musk, himself a Tesla board member, was aware of the effort, or if his pledge to spend more time at Tesla has affected succession planning.”
Tesla’s eight-member board has been criticized for having members with close ties to Musk. Last year, a Delaware judge who invalidated a $55.8 billion pay package awarded to Musk said that most of the board members “were beholden to Musk or had compromising conflicts.”
That includes Musk’s brother, Kimbal, and longtime Musk friend James Murdoch, said the ruling from Delaware Court of Chancery Judge Kathaleen McCormick. The judge also wrote that Denholm “derived the vast majority of her wealth from her compensation as a Tesla director” and took a “lackadaisical approach to her oversight obligations.” Denholm later defended Musk’s pay, telling shareholders that the large sum was needed to keep the CEO motivated.
Feds could censor chatbots if their “speech” isn’t protected, Character.AI says.
Pushing to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that its chatbots caused a teen’s suicide, Character Technologies is arguing that chatbot outputs should be considered “pure speech” deserving of the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.
In their motion to dismiss, the developers of Character.AI (C.AI) argued that it doesn’t matter who the speaker is—whether it’s a video game character spouting scripted dialogue, a foreign propagandist circulating misinformation, or a chatbot churning out AI-generated responses to prompting—courts protect listeners’ rights to access that speech. Accusing the mother of the departed teen, Megan Garcia, of attempting to “insert this Court into the conversations of millions of C.AI users” and supposedly endeavoring to “shut down” C.AI, the chatbot maker argued that the First Amendment bars all of her claims.
“The Court need not wrestle with the novel questions of who should be deemed the speaker of the allegedly harmful content here and whether that speaker has First Amendment rights,” Character Technologies argued, “because the First Amendment protects the public’s ‘right to receive information and ideas.'”
Warning that “imposing tort liability for one user’s alleged response to expressive content would be to ‘declare what the rest of the country can and cannot read, watch, and hear,'” the company urged the court to consider the supposed “chilling effect” that would have on “both on C.AI and the entire nascent generative AI industry.”
“‘Pure speech,’ such as the chat conversations at issue here, ‘is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment,'” Character Technologies argued in another court filing.
However, Garcia’s lawyers pointed out that even a video game character’s dialogue is written by a human, arguing that all of Character Technologies’ examples of protected “pure speech” are human speech. Although the First Amendment also protects non-human corporations’ speech, corporations are formed by humans, they noted. And unlike corporations, chatbots have no intention behind their outputs, her legal team argued, instead simply using a probabilistic approach to generate text. So they argue that the First Amendment does not apply.
Character Technologies argued in response that demonstrating C.AI’s expressive intent is not required, but if it were, “conversations with Characters feature such intent” because chatbots are designed to “be expressive and engaging,” and users help design and prompt those characters.
“Users layer their own expressive intent into each conversation by choosing which Characters to talk to and what messages to send and can also edit Characters’ messages and direct Characters to generate different responses,” the chatbot maker argued.
In her response opposing the motion to dismiss, Garcia urged the court to decline what her legal team characterized as Character Technologies’ invitation to “radically expand First Amendment protections from expressions of human volition to an unpredictable, non-determinative system where humans can’t even examine many of the mathematical functions creating outputs, let alone control them.”
To support Garcia’s case, they cited a 40-year-old ruling where the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a talking cat called “Blackie” could not be “considered a person” and was deemed a “non-human entity” despite possessing an “exceptional speech-like ability.”
Garcia’s lawyers hope the judge will rule that “AI output is not speech at all,” or if it is speech, it “falls within an exception to the First Amendment”—perhaps deemed offensive to minors who the chatbot maker knew were using the service or possibly resulting in a novel finding that manipulative speech isn’t protected. If either argument is accepted, the chatbot makers’ attempt to invoke “listeners’ rights cannot save it,” they suggested.
However, Character Technologies disputes that any recognized exception to the First Amendment’s protections is applicable in the case, noting that Garcia’s team is not arguing that her son’s chats with bots were “obscene” or incited violence. Rather, the chatbot maker argued, Garcia is asking the court to “be the first to hold that ‘manipulative expression’ is unprotected by the First Amendment because a ‘disparity in power and information between speakers and listeners… frustrat[es] listeners’ rights.'”
Now, a US court is being asked to clarify if chatbot outputs are protected speech. At a hearing Monday, a US district judge in Florida, Anne Conway, did not rule from the bench, Garcia’s legal team told Ars. Asking few questions of either side, the judge is expected to issue an opinion on the motion to dismiss within the next few weeks, or possibly months.
For Garcia and her family, who appeared at the hearing, the idea that AI “has more rights than humans” felt dehumanizing, Garcia’s legal team said.
“Pandering” to Trump administration to dodge guardrails
According to Character Technologies, the court potentially agreeing with Garcia that “that AI-generated speech is categorically unprotected” would have “far-reaching consequences.”
At perhaps the furthest extreme, they’ve warned Conway that without a First Amendment barrier, “the government could pass a law prohibiting AI from ‘offering prohibited accounts of history’ or ‘making negative statements about the nation’s leaders,’ as China has considered doing.” And the First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from controlling the flow of ideas in society, they noted, angling to make chatbot output protections seem crucial in today’s political climate.
Meetali Jain, Garcia’s attorney and founder of the Tech Justice Law Project, told Ars that this kind of legal challenge is new in the generative AI space, where copyright battles have dominated courtroom debates.
“This is the first time that I’ve seen not just the issue of the First Amendment being applied to gen AI but also the First Amendment being applied in this way,” Jain said.
In their court filing, Jain’s team noted that Character Technologies is not arguing that the First Amendment shielded the rights of Garcia’s son, Sewell Setzer, to receive allegedly harmful speech. Instead, their argument is “effectively juxtaposing the listeners’ rights of their millions of users against this one user who was aggrieved. So it’s kind of like the hypothetical users versus the real user who’s in court.”
Jain told Ars that Garcia’s team tried to convince the judge that the argument that it doesn’t matter who the speaker is, even when the speaker isn’t human, is reckless since it seems to be “implying” that “AI is a sentient being and has its own rights.”
Additionally, Jain suggested that Character Technologies’ argument that outputs must be shielded to avoid government censorship seems to be “pandering” to the Trump administration’s fears that China may try to influence American politics through social media algorithms like TikTok’s or powerful open source AI models like DeepSeek.
“That suggests that there can be no sort of imposition of guardrails on AI, lest we either lose on the national security front or because of these vague hypothetical under-theorized First Amendment concerns,” Jain told Ars.
At a press briefing Tuesday, Jain confirmed that the judge clearly understood that “our position was that the First Amendment protects speech, not words.”
“LLMs do not think and feel as humans do,” Jain said, citing University of Colorado law school researchers who supported their complaint. “Rather, they generate text through statistical methods based on patterns found in their training data. And so our position was that there is a distinction to make between words and speech, and that it’s really only the latter that is deserving of First Amendment protection.”
Jain alleged that Character Technologies is angling to create a legal environment where all chatbot outputs are protected against liability claims so that C.AI can operate “without any sort of constraints or guardrails.”
It’s notable, she suggested, that the chatbot maker updated its safety features following the death of Garcia’s son, Sewell Setzer. A C.AI blog mourned the “tragic loss of one of our users” and noted updates, included changes “to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content,” improved detection and intervention in harmful chat sessions, and “a revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person.”
Although Character Technologies argues that it’s common to update safety practices over time, Garcia’s team alleged these updates show that C.AI could have made a safer product and chose not to.
Expert warns against giving AI products rights
Character Technologies has also argued that C.AI is not a “product” as Florida law defines it. That has striking industry implications, according to Camille Carlton, a policy director for the Center for Humane Technology who is serving as a technical expert on the case.
At the press briefing, Carlton suggested that “by invoking these First Amendment protections over speech without really specifying whose speech is being protected, Character.AI’s defense has really laid the groundwork for a world in which LLM outputs are protected speech and for a world in which AI products could have other protected rights in the same way that humans do.”
Since chatbot outputs seemingly don’t have Section 230 protections—Jain noted it was somewhat surprising that Character Technologies did not raise this defense—the chatbot maker may be attempting to secure the First Amendment as a shield instead, Carlton suggested.
“It’s a move that they’re incentivized to take because it would reduce their own accountability and their own responsibility,” Carlton said.
Jain expects that whatever Conway decides, the losing side will appeal. However, if Conway denies the motion, then discovery can begin, perhaps allowing Garcia the clearest view yet into the allegedly harmful chats she believes manipulated her son into feeling completely disconnected from the real world.
If courts grant AI products across the board such rights, Carlton warned, troubled parents like Garcia may have no recourse for potentially dangerous outputs.
“This issue could fundamentally reshape how the law approaches AI free speech and corporate accountability,” Carlton said. “And I think the bottom line from our perspective—and from what we’re seeing in terms of the trends in Character.AI and the broader trends from these AI labs—is that we need to double down on the fact that these are products. They’re not people.”
Character Technologies declined Ars’ request to comment.
If you or someone you know is feeling suicidal or in distress, please call the Suicide Prevention Lifeline number, 1-800-273-TALK (8255), which will put you in touch with a local crisis center.
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
