California’s Adam’s Law Opens Door to AI Chatbot Lawsuits

California has created a new path for children and their families to pursue legal action against operators of AI companion chatbots when certain safety failures result in actual harm.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1119, known as “Adam’s Law,” on September 10, 2026, as part of a broader package of measures addressing children’s use of social media and artificial intelligence. Among its provisions, SB 1119 establishes an express private right of action that allows qualifying claims to be brought directly against chatbot operators.

Under the law, a child who suffers actual harm from certain violations, or a parent or guardian acting on the child’s behalf, may file a civil action seeking actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive or declaratory relief, and other relief considered appropriate by the court.

Which Chatbot Safety Violations Can Lead to a Lawsuit?

The private right of action does not apply to every violation of SB 1119.

Section 21816(b) allows a lawsuit when a child suffers actual harm because an operator violates specified requirements under Section 21812(d). Those provisions establish protections for children who interact with companion chatbots.

Covered operators must implement measures that include crisis-response protocols, parental controls, age-appropriate disclosures, usage limits, and recurring notices that remind children they are interacting with artificial intelligence.

The law also requires reasonable safeguards against certain potentially harmful chatbot behavior. These include interactions that encourage self-harm, suicidal ideation, the consumption of narcotics or alcohol, disordered eating, or reliance on the chatbot for emotional support.

Other restrictions address chatbots presenting themselves as human or sentient, simulating romantic interest in children, encouraging secrecy around chatbot use, or discouraging a child from seeking support from an adult or qualified professional.

Plaintiffs Must Show Actual Harm

SB 1119 does not provide private plaintiffs with automatic statutory damages simply because an operator violated one of the covered requirements.

Instead, the child must have suffered actual harm as a result of the violation. The law establishes additional thresholds depending on the type of harm alleged.

When the claimed harm is financial, the amount must exceed $1,000 per child. When the claimed harm is emotional, it must amount to “serious emotional distress.”

The statute does not further define serious emotional distress. How courts interpret that requirement, including what evidence will be necessary to establish it, may therefore become an important issue as claims arise under the law.

Attorney’s fees could also become a significant part of the enforcement framework. Successful plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in addition to other available relief.

Public Prosecutors Have Separate Enforcement Authority

Private lawsuits are only one part of SB 1119’s enforcement structure.

Public prosecutors may also bring civil actions against chatbot operators that violate the law. Negligent violations can carry penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child for each violation, while intentional violations can result in penalties of up to $15,000 per affected child for each violation. The California Attorney General may also pursue injunctive or declaratory relief.

That structure gives California both public and private mechanisms for enforcing the chatbot protections.

Adam’s Law Limits Use of California’s UCL

SB 1119 also places a boundary around how private plaintiffs may pursue claims.

A violation of Adam’s Law cannot independently serve as the basis for a private cause of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs relying on SB 1119 must instead proceed through the private right of action established by the statute and satisfy its requirements for actual harm and causation.

Chatbot Operators Face a New Compliance Framework

Many of SB 1119’s child-safety requirements become operative on July 1, 2027, giving covered companies time to review how their products interact with younger users.

For companion-chatbot operators, the law makes crisis protocols, parental controls, disclosures, conversational safeguards, and usage settings more than product-design considerations. Failure to comply with specified requirements could now create direct civil exposure when a child suffers qualifying harm.

As implementation approaches, the development of court standards around causation, financial harm, and serious emotional distress will help determine how broadly Adam’s Law’s new private enforcement mechanism is applied.