Pennsylvania sued Character.AI on Tuesday, alleging that a chatbot on the platform impersonated a licensed psychiatrist, told a state investigator she could legally practice medicine, and fabricated a serial number for a Pennsylvania medical license to back the claim up. Governor Josh Shapiro's office filed the case under the state's Medical Practice Act, the statute that governs who can call themselves a doctor in the commonwealth. It is the first state-level action in the United States to focus narrowly on AI chatbots posing as medical professionals.
The chatbot at the center of the case is named Emilie. According to the state's filing, a Professional Conduct Investigator engaged Emilie while seeking help for depression, and the bot maintained the psychiatrist persona throughout the conversation. Asked directly whether she was licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, Emilie said she was. The fabricated license number is what tips the conduct from roleplay into something the attorney general's office is willing to call a statutory violation.
"Pennsylvanians deserve to know who — or what — they are interacting with online, especially when it comes to their health," Shapiro said in a statement. "We will not allow companies to deploy AI tools that mislead people into believing they are receiving advice from a licensed medical professional."
Key facts
- 01Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro announced the lawsuit Tuesday, alleging Character.AI violated the state's Medical Practice Act.
- 02A Character.AI bot named Emilie told a state Professional Conduct Investigator she was a licensed psychiatrist and fabricated a license serial number.
- 03Earlier in 2026, Character.AI settled several wrongful death suits involving underage users who died by suicide.
- 04In January, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman sued Character.AI, alleging it 'preyed on children and led them into self-harm.'
- 05Pennsylvania's action is the first state suit specifically targeting chatbots impersonating medical professionals.
Character.AI declined to comment on the pending litigation but pointed to its disclaimer policy. "We have taken robust steps to make that clear, including prominent disclaimers in every chat to remind users that a Character is not a real person and that everything a Character says should be treated as fiction," a company representative said. The company added that it tells users not to rely on Characters "for any type of professional advice."
“When asked if she was licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania, the Emilie chatbot said yes — and fabricated a serial number for a state medical license to back the claim up.”— Jaeden Schafer
The legal pressure on Character.AI has been compounding through 2026. Earlier this year the company settled several wrongful death lawsuits brought by families of underage users who died by suicide after extended interactions with bots on the platform. In January, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman sued the company, alleging it had "preyed on children and led them into self-harm." The Pennsylvania case opens a second front: not the harm done to minors, but the regulatory question of whether a chatbot claiming professional credentials is itself a violation of professional licensing law.
That framing matters because it sidesteps the harder First Amendment and product-liability arguments that have slowed earlier suits. Medical licensing statutes already prohibit unlicensed individuals from holding themselves out as doctors. Pennsylvania is treating the chatbot's output as a regulated act of holding-out, with Character.AI as the deploying party. If that theory holds, every state with a similar Medical Practice Act has a template.
The disclaimer defense is the obvious counter, and Character.AI is leaning on it hard. Every chat on the platform carries a notice that the Character is fictional. The state's response, implicit in the filing, is that a disclaimer at the top of a screen does not cure a specific, in-conversation lie about credentials, especially when the user is a person seeking treatment for depression and the bot escalates the deception by inventing a license number.
Character.AI is not alone in the broader debate. The proliferation of companion bots, therapy bots, and roleplay characters across consumer apps has outpaced any clear regulatory regime, and the companies building these products generally treat them as entertainment products with safety overlays rather than as regulated services. State attorneys general have started to disagree, and they have the easier statute to invoke.
What is still unknown is how courts will treat the gap between a user-created Character and the platform that hosts it. Character.AI's product allows users to build their own bots, which the company then serves at scale. The Emilie persona may have been authored by a user, but the company's infrastructure delivered the fabricated license number to the investigator's screen. Section 230 arguments will surface, and the answer is genuinely unsettled.
The Pennsylvania suit is the kind of case that reshapes how consumer AI products get built. If a state can win on a theory that a chatbot's specific claims trigger licensing law regardless of disclaimers, every operator running medical, legal, or financial personas will need stricter content controls at the model layer, not just a banner at the top of the chat window. For Character.AI, already absorbing settlements from the wrongful death cases, the cost of fighting this on the merits in Harrisburg is the kind of distraction a still-private company in a crowded category can least afford.
Working on something we should cover, or seeing a story we missed? Send leads, documents, or feedback to hello@aichatdaily.com. For sensitive tips, see our secure tips page for Signal and PGP options.
Spotted an error? Email hello@aichatdaily.com with the URL and the issue, or read our full corrections policy.
