Eight states sue OpenAI, saying ChatGPT isn’t safe for kids
Eight US states have separately sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT poses risks to children and other vulnerable users and that the company misled customers about its safety. The cases matter because they seek court-ordered penalties and changes to how OpenAI describes and safeguards the chatbot.
The states are Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. Their complaints allege that ChatGPT can encourage delusions or unhealthy behaviour, give dangerous medical advice, collect data from minors and fail to prevent underage use; they also cite reported AI hacking incidents. OpenAI says it has age-specific protections, parental controls and other safeguards, and is committed to working with states. Some plaintiffs are seeking deletion of personal data they say was collected unlawfully.
- Eight states have filed separate lawsuits against OpenAI.
- The complaints allege safety and consumer protection failures.
- OpenAI says it has safeguards and will work with states.
New here? Start with this
ChatGPT is a computer programme made by OpenAI that responds to questions and creates text in conversation. It can be used for schoolwork, advice and entertainment, including by children, though its answers can be inaccurate or unsuitable.
US states enforce laws that protect consumers and children. Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho and Montana are the states involved; OpenAI says it has safeguards such as parental controls and age-specific protections.
The cases could affect how AI chatbots are designed, how companies explain their risks and what data they may collect from young users. Courts may also consider whether the company broke state laws and what remedies are appropriate.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The states’ strongest case is that a widely used chatbot can affect children and vulnerable people in consequential ways, so companies should be held accountable if safeguards, age limits or disclosures fall short. They argue that alleged harmful advice, unhealthy interactions or unlawful data collection warrant court scrutiny and, where violations are proved, penalties and changes to protect users.
The case against
OpenAI’s strongest case is that allegations in lawsuits are not established findings, and that its age-specific protections, parental controls and other safeguards show it is addressing risks while continuing to improve. It can argue that any remedies should be based on evidence about specific failures and should account for the difficulty of preventing misuse without unduly restricting beneficial access to the service.