What the thing is decides who pays

A fourteen-year-old died. His mother sued the company that made the chatbot he had been talking to.

Before anyone could argue about fault, the court had to decide what the chatbot is.

In May 2025 a federal judge in Florida treated it as a product rather than a service. The product liability, negligence and wrongful death claims survived dismissal. The case settled in January 2026. The terms were not made public.

That word decides who can be sued. Product liability reaches the people who make a thing and put it on the market. It never asks what the thing understood.

Turkish law draws its own list. Code of Obligations article 71 holds the owner of a significantly dangerous enterprise liable for damage from its activity. Where an operator exists, both answer together.

The test is not carelessness. An enterprise qualifies where its activity is apt to cause frequent or severe damage even when an expert shows every care.

Whether running an AI system meets that test is my argument, not a settled rule.

Law No. 7223 deems an importer or distributor the manufacturer when it markets a product under its own name or trademark.

So the question is never what the machine thought. It is who owns the thing, who runs it, and who put it on the market.