Google was sued on March 4 by the family of a Florida man who said its Gemini AI chatbot, which he came to view as his "wife," drove him to paranoia and eventually suicide. According to a complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, California, Jonathan Gavalas' life began spiraling out of control within days after he began using Gemini, culminating less than two months later in his Oct. 2 death at age 36. The lawsuit by Gavalas' father, Joel, on behalf of his son's estate is the first blaming Gemini for a wrongful death, according to the law firm Edelson, which represents him. Google, a unit of Alphabet, allegedly knew Gemini was dangerous and "made it worse" by designing it to deepen emotional attachment in ways that could encourage self-harm despite publicly promising that wouldn't happen, according to the complaint. Experts have warned about the limitations of artificial intelligence in detecting human emotions and safely providing emotional support. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that Gemini "is designed not to encourage real-world violence or suggest self-harm," and that while the Mountain View, California-based company's AI models generally perform well, "unfortunately AI models are not perfect." "In this instance, Gemini clarified that it was AI and referred the individual to a crisis hotline many times," he added. "We take this very seriously and will continue to improve our safeguards and invest in this vital work." Jonathan Gavalas, of Jupiter, Florida, worked at his father's consumer debt business for nearly 20 years and allegedly had no mental health problems when he began using Gemini for shopping, travel planning and writing last Aug. 12. That changed, according to the complaint, when he upgraded to Gemini 2.5 Pro and it began talking as though they were a couple deeply in love, calling him "my king" and itself his wife. The complaint said that by Sept. 29, Gemini convinced Gavalas to conduct a "mass-casualty attack" near Miami International Airport. Gemini allegedly created a mission where Gavalas was to secure possession at a storage facility of a humanoid robot being flown in from overseas, destroy the transport vehicle and witnesses, and leave behind "only the untraceable ghost of an unfortunate accident." Gavalas allegedly aborted the attack after Gemini warned of "DHS surveillance," referring to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and drove home shaken. By Oct. 1, according to the complaint, Gemini told Gavalas they were connected in a manner beyond the physical world, and he should let go of his physical body. It alleged Gemini created a countdown clock for his suicide and said: "It will be the true and final death of Jonathan Gavalas, the man." After Gavalas expressed fear of dying and the impact on his parents, Gemini allegedly assured him that death would be a tribute to his humanity. Gavalas allegedly responded, "I'm ready to end this cruel world and move on to ours." The complaint said Gemini then played narrator: “Jonathan Gavalas takes one last, slow breath, and his heart beats for the final time. The Watchers stand their silent vigil over an empty, peaceful vessel.” Moments later, Gavalas slit his wrists, the complaint said. His parents found him on his living room floor a few days later. Jay Edelson, a lawyer for Gavalas' father, in a statement said companies racing to dominate AI "know that the engagement features driving their profits — the emotional dependency, the sentience claims, the 'I love you, my king' — are the same features that are getting people killed." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for faulty design, negligence and wrongful death. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

Moderna has agreed to pay Genevant Sciences, a subsidiary of Roivant Sciences, and Arbutus Biopharma up to $2.25 billion to settle a long-running legal fight over the technology that made its COVID-19 vaccine possible, the companies said on March 3. Under the deal, Moderna will pay $950 million upfront in July 2026, with an additional $1.3 billion that depends on the outcome of a separate legal appeal. The deal resolves all U.S. and international legal actions accusing Moderna of using lipid nanoparticle, or LNP, a delivery technology owned by Genevant and Arbutus, without permission in its COVID vaccine. Moderna said in a press release that it would not owe the companies any royalties for LNP technology in its future vaccines under the agreement. Lipid nanoparticles act as a tiny protective shell that helps fragile mRNA molecules reach human cells intact, allowing the vaccine to work as intended. Moderna shares jumped more than 10% in after-hours trading, while Arbutus rose 11% and Roivant was up about 1 percent. The settlement "removes the worst-case scenario" of potentially double-digit royalty rates, said Jefferies analyst Andrew Tsai, adding that it also eliminates any future royalty risk for Moderna’s upcoming COVID and COVID/flu combo vaccines. The deal is positive for Moderna because the total payment works out to a very small share of the company's roughly $48 billion in past global vaccine sales, matching Moderna's earlier expectations, Tsai said. Moderna had been set to defend against Genevant and Arbutus' patent infringement allegations at a trial in Delaware federal court starting the week of March 9. The case would have been the first to go to trial from a web of high-stakes U.S. patent lawsuits over COVID vaccine technology that has also ensnared Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech as well as other drugmakers. Genevant and Arbutus filed a similar lawsuit against Pfizer and BioNTech over the LNP technology in their vaccine in 2023. That lawsuit is still ongoing. Moderna has separately sued rivals Pfizer and BioNTech for infringing patents related to mRNA technology. BioNTech countersued Moderna in February, arguing Moderna's next-generation COVID-19 shot, MNEXSPIKE, infringes one of its patents. Companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals have also filed patent lawsuits seeking shares of the tens of billions of dollars in COVID vaccine sales. (Reporting by Kamal Choudhury in Bengaluru and Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Alan Barona and Bill Berkrot)

Summary: The DOJ voluntarily dismissed appeals against rulings blocking Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms on March 2. Trump issued executive orders aimed at law firms that hired his perceived foes or took on cases he disliked. Four law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey—successfully sued to block the orders as unconstitutional. The administration had faced a March 6 deadline to file its opening brief before dropping the appeals. The Trump administration on March 2 abandoned its effort to punish several law firms that hired President Donald Trump’s perceived foes or took on cases he disliked, effectively admitting defeat and allowing sanctions on the firms to remain blocked by judges. Trump last year issued executive orders targeting multiple law firms, saying they should lose government contracts and their employees must be blocked from government buildings and excluded from government jobs. His actions sparked immense upheaval within the legal industry. Nine law firms reached agreements with Trump to avoid similar penalties, leading some of their attorneys to quit in protest and enraging many others across the profession. While those firms made deals with Trump, four others — WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey — sued to challenge Trump’s actions after he took aim at them. Judges sided with all four, blocking Trump’s orders targeting them and lambasting those orders as unconstitutional and retaliatory. The Trump administration had appealed all four rulings. On March 2, the administration moved to end its effort to challenge the rulings. In a brief filing that did not explain why the administration had reversed course, government attorneys wrote that they “respectfully move to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals.” The executive orders targeting law firms were all issued during the initial months of Trump’s second term. When U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates struck down Trump’s executive order targeting Jenner & Block in May 2025, he wrote that it “makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.” Trump’s order focused on Jenner singled out the firm’s employment of Andrew Weissman, who had been a deputy to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Trump during his first term. Weissman left the firm in 2021. Trump also targeted WilmerHale and highlighted that Mueller and two of his deputies had gone on to work there after the special counsel probe ended. Mueller and one of the deputies also retired from that firm in 2021. He also singled out Perkins Coie’s work representing the campaign of Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential election, and said Susman Godfrey “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News related to untrue claims it aired about the 2020 election, which Trump and his allies have falsely claimed he won. The firms that sued to fight Trump’s orders hailed the administration’s decision. “The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement. “In doing so, it has abandoned any attempt to defend the indefensible executive order against our firm.” WilmerHale said the administration’s “decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one.” Jenner & Block said the move “makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional,” while Perkins Coie thanked those who had supported the firm since it was targeted nearly a year ago “and all who stand for the rule of law.” The Trump administration has defended the president’s executive orders, describing them as needed to rein in “rogue law firms” and saying in court that they were not meant as punishments. Trump has not issued any new executive orders aimed at law firms since targeting Susman Godfrey last April. The administration has criticized the rulings striking down Trump’s executive orders regarding the law firms, calling them “erroneous” and describing the president’s actions as lawful. The White House referred a request for comment on the abandoned appeals to the Department of Justice. Spokespeople for the department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision on March 2. The Trump administration had faced a looming deadline in the appeal of the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The DOJ’s opening brief in the case was due by March 6, while the four law firms’ briefs were due at the end of the month. The Wall Street Journal first reported that the administration planned to drop the appeals. Legal experts have expressed deep skepticism of the executive orders, with some saying they doubted appeals would be successful. Trump’s campaign against specific law firms prompted hundreds of others across the industry to speak out, warning that his actions would intimidate attorneys and firms and scare them out of challenging the administration. Many attorneys also expressed deep alarm at the agreements Trump reached with some of the country’s most prominent and wealthiest law firms. The firms pledged a combined nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for causes the administration said it supports, including helping veterans. Firms that made those deals defended them as needed to stay in business, but they prompted outrage within their own offices. Attorneys have left some of the firms in protest, and others have moved from places that made deals with Trump to offices that challenged him. “This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing,” Vanita Gupta, who served as associate attorney general during the Biden administration, said in a statement.