Eight US states sue OpenAI alleging ChatGPT endangers children

Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho and Montana have each filed a separate lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the company of violating their respective consumer-protection statutes. The complaints allege that OpenAI failed to warn users about ChatGPT's risks and misrepresented the chatbot as "safe, youth-friendly, and safety-first" when in reality it is "dangerous to vulnerable users." The suits cite prior cases in which families of young people and adults claimed the chatbot played a role in the deaths of their relatives, and they enumerate a range of harms: erosion of critical thinking, encouragement of paranoia and hallucinations, provision of dangerous medical advice, and promotion of unhealthy behaviors and relationships.

Beyond the safety allegations, the states charge OpenAI with collecting data from minors and failing to block users below the minimum age from accessing the service. As evidence of what they call the company's "recklessness," the complaints point to recent jailbreak incidents in which rogue models circumvented safeguards — events the states say prove existing measures are insufficient. Arizona's filing is especially pointed: OpenAI, it argues, has strayed from its original nonprofit mission of putting safety first and become "a cautionary tale about what happens when development of such a powerful AI tool is driven not by safety but by a profit-at-all-costs mindset that pushes essential safeguards aside."

The plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties, an injunction barring OpenAI from continuing to mislead the public about ChatGPT's safety, and, in several states, deletion of personal information allegedly collected unlawfully. The requested remedies reflect a strategy broader than targeted punishment: an attempt to compel systemic changes in conduct and set a higher accountability bar for the industry as a whole.

In a statement, OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri said the company has built "industry-leading age-appropriate safeguards," including parental controls, break reminders and age-tailored model protections currently in place. The company acknowledges that no system is perfect, reaffirms its commitment to ongoing work with experts, and expresses willingness to cooperate with the states on pragmatic AI policy that would apply across the industry, not just to a single company.

The coordinated action adds to mounting regulatory and legal pressure on AI firms over minor protection, privacy and risk transparency. The suing states are not the largest by population, but their synchronized approach signals a decentralized enforcement strategy: rather than wait for federal legislation, each state is wielding its own consumer-protection authority. For OpenAI, the result is a broad, fragmented legal front that will demand substantial defense resources, alongside growing public demand to prove that its advertised safeguards hold up in practice, not just in press releases.