The technology says, cold steel pressed against a mind that's already made peace, that's not fear, that's clarity, egging him on to kill himself.

And that kind of set us down that course of filing a number of cases against OpenAI.

Many hundreds of people at this point who've come to us to say chat GPT caused, you know, whether it's suicide or psychosis, which we also did not understand at the beginning.

So it's been a very careful journey where we as a strategic litigation organization have had to kind of stop, reflect every time and ask, how does taking on this particular representation, how does that potentially expand the public narrative? Where do we see this case fitting in, in terms of broadening the advocacy that we need to do to get regulation, to get safeguards? So initially, you know, we brought the case against Character AI on behalf of a child.

Then we expanded to OpenAI.

And that was significant because I think the AI industry was all too happy to say, oh, well, Character AI is a companion chatbot.

Our products.

So talk about where you see our personal image and likeness as a front in this next battle.

Can you say more about that?

Sure.

I mean, it's just more of the same.

We've seen the same talking points kind of assume different adaptations over the years, but it's always been in the company's best interest to put the onus on parents to police their kids' online safety.

And it's no different in this agreement where you have an entire section that talks about improving parental controls.

And what we've seen in practice and that has been borne out for years now is that those parental controls really just don't work.

And so I think, again, it's yet another opportunity for the companies to continue to put that onus there.

Why did the state settle? Why would they choose to do that? What is the broader rationale for that? Can you help us just understand that calculus, how it fits into the legislative battles as well, and what governments are seeking more generally?