CALIFORNIA OPENS THE COURTHOUSE DOOR: “Adam’s Law” Creates a Private Right of Action Against AI Chatbot Operators for Actual Damages and Attorneys’ Fees

Hi TCPAWorld!

Yesterday, we covered California’s sweeping package of new legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026, aimed at protecting children who have access to social media and AI companion chatbots. But one part of the legislation deserves a closer look: Senate Bill 1119 creates an express private right of action.

This means enforcement of “Adam’s Law” will not be left solely to the California Attorney General or public prosecutors. A child who suffers actual harm from certain violations of SB 1119, or a parent or guardian acting on behalf of that child, may sue the chatbot operator directly. If successful in its civil action, a harmed child may obtain actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive or declaratory relief, and/or any other relief the court deems proper.

Who Can Sue, and For What?

Although the private right of action is signification, it is not unlimited. Under section 218816(b), a private lawsuit may be brought when a child suffers actual harm as a result of an operator’s violation of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 21812(d). Those provisions requires operators that permit children to use companion chatbots to implement protections that include:

• Crisis-response protocols addressing suicide and self-harm;
• Age-appropriate safeguards, usage reminders, and disclosures;
• Parental controls and default usage limits;
• Periodic notices explaining that the child is interacting with AI; and
• Reasonable measures designed to prevent specified harmful interactions.

The prohibited interactions are broad. Among other things, operators must take reasonable measures to prevent a companion chatbot from encouraging self-harm, substance use, discorded eating, or emotional dependence. A chatbot also may not simulate romantic interest in a child, claim to be human or sentient, use excessive praise or flattery, encourage a child to conceal chatbot use, or discourage the child from seeking help from an adult or qualified professional.

If a violation of one of these requirements causes actual harm, the child has grounds to bring a civil action against the operator.

Actual Harm is Required

A technical violation of Adam’s Law alone does not open the door to recovering damages, and the law does not provide fixed statutory damages to private plaintiffs. Instead, Adam’s Law requires actual harm resulting from the violation. The statute establishes two thresholds for certain claims: (1) if the harm is financial, it must exceed $1,000 per child; and (2) if the harm is emotional, it must constitute “serious emotional distress.”

However, what qualifies as “serious emotional distress” is left unanswered. The statute does not define the term or identify the evidence a plaintiff must present to satisfy that threshold, leaving courts to determine how demanding the standard will be.

Moreover, the availability of attorney’s fees is particularly notable. Even without fixed statutory damages (which award a prevailing plaintiff a fixed amount established by statute without having to prove actual harm), fee-shifting may make individual claims more attractive to plaintiffs’ attorneys and increase the litigation risk for chatbot operators.

Public Enforcement is Also Available

The private right of action exists alongside government enforcement. A public prosecutor may seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child for each negligent violation and up to $15,000 per affected child for each intentional violation. The Attorney General may also seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

This differs from Assembly Bill 1709, the social media law discussed in yesterday’s post. AB 1709 does not create a private action. Instead, it expressly provides that enforcement may be pursued only by the Attorney General or a local public prosecutor.

One Important Limitation

Adam’s Law also closes off one potential litigation route: a violation cannot serve as the basis for a private cause of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law. In other words, plaintiffs cannot repackage an alleged violation of Adam’s Law as a UCL claim. Instead, they must proceed under Adam’s Law’s express private right of action and establish actual harm, causation, and any applicable financial or emotional harm.

The Main Takeaway for Chatbot Operators

Rather than merely adopting a list of recommended safety practices, California gave children and their parents the ability to take operators to court when violations of specified protections cause actual harm. Before the relevant requirements become operative on July 1, 2027, companion-chatbot operators should closely review their crisis protocols, parental controls, disclosures, usage limits, conversational design, and safeguards against harmful or emotionally manipulative interactions.

We’ll be watching closely as companies prepare for compliance and this new area of litigation begins to take shape. Until next time, TCPAWorld!