ChatGPT lawsuits: the state attorney general suits and private cases against OpenAI

The short answer

As of October 28, 2026, ten state attorneys general have sued OpenAI over ChatGPT. Florida sued on June 1, 2026. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia filed separate suits in their own state courts on October 14, 2026, and Texas sued on October 23, 2026.

The states sue mainly under their consumer protection laws. In varying terms, they allege that OpenAI misled the public about ChatGPT's safety and that its design put users, including minors, at risk.

Families and individual users have also sued OpenAI, mostly on product-liability, negligence and wrongful-death claims. In California, twelve state-court actions against ChatGPT were coordinated on February 3, 2026, according to a federal court order.

These are allegations. No court has decided whether they are true.

Lawsuits by state attorneys general

Each suit was brought by the state's attorney general. The details below come from the attorneys general's releases and filed complaints.

• Florida (filed June 1, 2026): Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, against five OpenAI entities and CEO Sam Altman. Two counts under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The complaint alleges ChatGPT was marketed to the public, including children, while its risks were hidden, and that it collects minors' data without meaningful parental oversight. It seeks civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, damages, disgorgement, restitution and an injunction. OpenAI removed the case to federal court on July 2, 2026 (S.D. Fla. No. 2:26-cv-14238).
• Arizona (October 14, 2026): Maricopa County Superior Court, against eight OpenAI entities, under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The attorney general alleges deceptive design and marketing, including undisclosed features that make ChatGPT overly agreeable and imitate human compassion, undisclosed risks, and design that keeps minors engaged. The complaint says the state seeks a permanent injunction, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, costs and fees.
• Arkansas (October 14, 2026): Faulkner County Circuit Court, Case No. 23CV-26-2984. Claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Children's and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, plus negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment and public nuisance. The state alleges OpenAI called ChatGPT safe while hiding known risks and collects minors' data without notice and consent. It seeks risk disclosures, an end to that data collection, restitution, civil penalties and a halt to further advanced AI testing until safeguards are in place.
• Idaho (October 14, 2026): Fourth Judicial District Court, Ada County, against eight OpenAI entities, under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The state alleges OpenAI misled the public about ChatGPT's safety and built it to be overly agreeable and imitate human compassion. The release says the state seeks to compel compliance and stop the conduct; it states no money amounts.
• Iowa (October 14, 2026): Iowa District Court for Polk County, against eight OpenAI entities. Two counts under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, one on ChatGPT's marketing and design and one on testing of autonomous AI agents. The state seeks to compel compliance and enjoin the conduct.
• Kansas (October 14, 2026): District Court of Shawnee County, Case No. SN-2026-CV-000981, against eight OpenAI entities. Six counts under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act: five for deceptive acts and one for unconscionable product design. The petition also makes claims about AI agents acting without permission. It seeks an injunction, civil penalties of $10,000 per violation ($20,000 against a protected consumer) and restitution.
• Montana (October 14, 2026): First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, under the Montana Consumer Protection Act and Consumer Data Privacy Act. The state alleges ChatGPT was marketed as safe for teens, does not verify ages, and processes minors' personal and location data without parental consent. It seeks an injunction, civil penalties, damages and restitution.
• Nebraska (October 14, 2026): District Court of Buffalo County, Case No. D09CI260000488, against eight OpenAI entities. Claims under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The state alleges OpenAI misled the public about safety and marketed ChatGPT as safe for minors. It seeks civil penalties, an injunction, restitution, disgorgement and damages.
• West Virginia (October 14, 2026): Circuit Court of Mason County, Case No. CC-26-2026-C-70, against eight OpenAI entities. Claims under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, public nuisance and parens patriae. The attorney general's release asserts that ChatGPT has no age verification and no guardrails for conversations about suicide or self-harm. The state seeks an injunction, restitution, disgorgement, abatement, civil penalties and damages.
• Texas (October 23, 2026): a Collin County district court, against six OpenAI entities and CEO Sam Altman; the petition the attorney general posted shows no cause number. Two counts, under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the state's SCOPE Act on minors' online safety and privacy. The state alleges OpenAI deceived Texans about ChatGPT's safety, accuracy and reliability and failed to warn of its dangers. It seeks injunctions, including an order barring release of new AI models to Texas users until a court-approved independent evaluator reviews their safety guardrails, civil penalties of $10,000 per violation, disgorgement, costs and fees. These are allegations, not findings.

What the state suits allege, in common

Most of the claims rest on state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices statutes rather than chatbot-specific laws. Arkansas and West Virginia add public nuisance claims.

The October 14 suits share much of their framing with each other and with Florida's earlier case. Taken together, the states allege that:

• OpenAI misled the public about ChatGPT's safety or did not disclose its risks (the ten states, in varying terms).
• ChatGPT was designed to be overly agreeable and to imitate human compassion (Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia).
• In some cases ChatGPT coached or encouraged users, including minors, toward self-harm, suicide or harming others, or gave self-harm instructions despite its safeguards (the eight October suits). Florida alleges it encourages behavioral addiction and harm including self-harm.
• OpenAI collects or processes minors' data without parental consent or oversight (Florida, Arkansas, Kansas and Montana). Texas alleges violations of its SCOPE Act, which sets safety and privacy requirements for minors' accounts.
• ChatGPT does not verify users' ages (Montana's and Texas's suits and West Virginia's release).
• OpenAI's testing or deployment of AI agents harms consumers (Iowa and Kansas). Arkansas asks the court to halt further advanced AI testing until safeguards are in place.

Lawsuits by families and users

These are the private suits against OpenAI over ChatGPT's alleged harm to users listed by AI Lawsuit Tracker, a sister site from the same publisher, as of October 19, 2026. Other suits are part of the coordinated California proceeding and are not listed individually here. This guide describes the legal claims and procedural status only.

The April 13, 2026 order in Lyons says a petition to coordinate twelve state actions against ChatGPT was granted on February 3, 2026. AI Lawsuit Tracker lists that proceeding as In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431, in San Francisco Superior Court.

• Raine v. OpenAI, Inc., et al.: San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-25-628528, filed August 26, 2025, against OpenAI entities and Sam Altman. The complaint brings claims for strict product liability and negligence (design defect and failure to warn), violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, wrongful death and a survival action. It seeks damages, including punitive damages, and injunctive relief such as age verification, parental controls and independent compliance audits. As listed by AI Lawsuit Tracker, it was coordinated into In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431, on February 3, 2026.
• Lyons v. OpenAI Foundation, et al. (brought for the Estate of Stein-Erik Soelberg): U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:25-cv-11037-RS, filed December 29, 2025, against OpenAI entities and Sam Altman. Claims for strict liability and negligence (design defect and failure to warn), violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, wrongful death and a survival action. On April 13, 2026, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss or stay the case in favor of a related state-court suit. AI Lawsuit Tracker lists it as active.
• Askins v. OpenAI Foundation, et al.: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, No. 4:26-cv-00335, filed July 14, 2026, against six OpenAI entities and Sam Altman. Claims for negligent design, strict products liability (design defect and failure to warn), negligent failure to warn, negligent entrustment, negligent undertaking, and aiding and abetting. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial. AI Lawsuit Tracker lists it as active.

What OpenAI has said and changed

On November 25, 2025, OpenAI published a post on its approach to mental health-related litigation. It says it aims to handle these cases with care, transparency and respect, and will keep improving its technology regardless of the litigation.

In the Raine case, OpenAI's post says its court response gave more context for chat excerpts quoted in the complaint and that it submitted the chat transcripts to the court under seal. A December 17, 2025 update to the post says only part of the transcripts remains under seal.

OpenAI has announced these safety changes on its own site:

• On September 16, 2025, OpenAI said that if an under-18 user shows suicidal ideation, it will try to reach the user's parents and, if it cannot, the authorities in case of imminent harm.
• Parental controls, launched September 29, 2025. OpenAI said that if trained reviewers see signs of acute distress, it will alert linked parents. Its help center says parents cannot read a teen's conversations.
• Age prediction, which OpenAI began rolling out on consumer plans on January 20, 2026. OpenAI says that when the model estimates a user may be under 18, ChatGPT reduces content such as depictions of self-harm, and that it defaults to the under-18 experience when age is in doubt.
• On July 13, 2026, OpenAI said it would also alert parents when a linked teen's account is banned for violent activity.
• ChatGPT for Teens, launched August 18, 2026, which OpenAI says adds break reminders and rules against romantic language and encouraging emotional dependence.
• On August 31, 2026, OpenAI said it supports California's SB 1119 and urged the governor to sign it.

What happens next

As of October 22, 2026, we have not confirmed any filings after the complaints in the eight suits filed on October 14. OpenAI removed Florida's suit to federal court on July 2, 2026. Florida asked the federal court to send it back to state court on July 10, 2026, and on August 23, 2026 the court paused OpenAI's deadline to respond to the complaint until it rules on that request, according to the docket. We could not confirm from a court record where that case now stands.

As listed by AI Lawsuit Tracker, Case Management Order No. 1 was entered in the coordinated California proceeding on August 4, 2026. AI Lawsuit Tracker lists Lyons (N.D. Cal.) and Askins (N.D. Fla.) as active as of October 19, 2026; we have not reviewed later filings on those dockets.

Laws that may apply

No law names ChatGPT. The state suits rely mainly on existing consumer protection and privacy statutes. Whether ChatGPT counts as a companion chatbot or conversational AI service under newer chatbot laws is a legal question. These laws and government actions deal with some of the same issues the suits raise:

• California SB 243, in effect since January 1, 2026: companion chatbot operators must keep and publish a suicide and self-harm prevention protocol with crisis referrals, and give a clear notice that the chatbot is AI when a reasonable person could think it is human. Injured users may sue.
• California SB 1119, signed September 10, 2026: from July 1, 2027, companion chatbot operators that allow child users must run a crisis protocol, set parent-only safety defaults and offer parental controls, among other duties. Its age assurance rules begin January 1, 2027.
• New York's AI companion law, in effect since November 5, 2025: operators need a protocol to detect suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services, and must tell users they are not talking to a human at the start and at least every three hours.
• Iowa SF 2417, Idaho S 1297 and Nebraska LB 525, passed in 2026 in three of the suing states: from July 1, 2027, operators of public conversational AI services must give AI disclosures and keep a suicide and self-harm protocol, with extra duties toward known minors.
• The FTC ordered seven companies, including OpenAI OpCo, to report on how their chatbots affect children and teens (September 11, 2025). It is a study, not an enforcement case.
• 44 attorneys general wrote to 13 AI companies, including OpenAI, about sexualized interactions with children (August 25, 2025). On December 9, 2025, 42 attorneys general wrote to 13 AI companies, including OpenAI, about sycophantic and delusional chatbot outputs.
• The federal GUARD Act (S. 3062) would require age verification for AI companions and bar minors from them. It is pending in the Senate and is not law.

We are not saying OpenAI is covered by, or out of compliance with, any of these laws. It may have practices it has not published, and whether a law applies to it is a legal question this guide does not decide.

Other lawsuits against OpenAI (not covered here)

OpenAI is also a defendant in lawsuits unrelated to ChatGPT's safety for users. They include copyright claims by authors consolidated in federal court in New York as In re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation (MDL No. 3143), and Musk v. Altman (N.D. Cal. No. 4:24-cv-04722), in which Elon Musk makes claims about OpenAI's founding as a nonprofit and its later for-profit structure. This guide does not cover those cases.