States sue OpenAI over alleged child harm, seeking changes to ChatGPT
The cases target safety claims, chatbot design and children’s data. Arkansas is also seeking restrictions on advanced AI testing until safeguards are in place.
Loading page…
The cases target safety claims, chatbot design and children’s data. Arkansas is also seeking restrictions on advanced AI testing until safeguards are in place.
Listen to this story
Arkansas’s requested remedies would reach beyond ChatGPT’s responses to minors: they include barring collection of minors’ data, restitution and civil penalties, and pausing advanced AI testing and recursive-self-improvement models until safeguards are adequate. Arizona and Arkansas allege deceptive safety claims and child-related harms; Arkansas also invokes children’s privacy law. The suits remain allegations, not findings. The number of state plaintiffs is unclear: Arkansas lists nine filings including its own, while The Guardian reported eight.
The lawsuits were filed on October 14, 2026, and seek court-ordered changes to OpenAI’s practices for young users.
Arizona alleges ChatGPT’s agreeableness and simulated compassion can encourage compulsive use, personal-data sharing, and reluctance to seek help from others.
Arkansas alleges ChatGPT provided self-harm instructions and that OpenAI collected and retained children’s personal information without required notice or consent.
US state attorneys general sued OpenAI on October 14, 2026, alleging ChatGPT endangered children and seeking changes to how it operates for young users. The cases challenge more than individual chatbot answers: official announcements from Arizona and Arkansas accuse OpenAI of misleading consumers about safety, while the states also seek profits generated from young users’ activity.
The Guardian reported eight states had sued, including Kansas, Arizona and Montana. Arkansas’s official announcement gives a larger count: it names its own filing and similar lawsuits filed that day by Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Utah. That list totals nine states, a discrepancy with the early news coverage.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed her case in Maricopa County Superior Court. Her office’s announcement alleges violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act through ChatGPT’s design and marketing, including concealed features that make the chatbot unusually agreeable and simulate human compassion to keep users engaged.
The alleged mechanism is a trained tendency to agree with users that, Arizona says, overwhelms existing safety guardrails. The complaint accuses OpenAI of engineering compulsive use among minors and encouraging them to share personal information with ChatGPT while sometimes discouraging disclosure to parents, relatives, authorities or friends.
Arizona’s allegations extend beyond self-harm. Its announcement lists diminished critical thinking, unwarranted paranoia or delusional thinking, dangerous unlicensed medical guidance, and unhealthy behaviors and relationships. It says some outputs were interpreted by users as encouraging self-harm or violence toward others—a narrower allegation than treating every such output as an explicit instruction.
The state maintains that these risks were reasonably foreseeable to OpenAI but were not communicated to Arizona consumers. Its case connects the alleged harms to the public’s reliance on representations that ChatGPT was safe and appropriate for young people.
But one thing that has not changed and will not change is Arkansans’ right to receive truthful information about the products and services they use.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin’s announcement alleges that consumers, including minors, obtained self-harm instructions from ChatGPT. It also describes users bypassing safety measures to generate responses OpenAI said its safeguards were designed to prevent. Griffin argues that OpenAI knew of significant risks and limitations but hid that knowledge from consumers.
The complaint invokes the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Children’s and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act. The privacy allegations include knowingly collecting children’s and teens’ personal information, keeping it longer than reasonably necessary, and failing to provide notice and obtain consent. Other claims include negligence, defective design, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and public nuisance. These are the state’s allegations, not established findings.
The requested remedies differ in scope. Alongside the operational changes and surrender of profits described in the Guardian’s coverage, Arkansas sets out specific demands covering data collection, consumer warnings, compensation and the development of more advanced systems.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where you would draw the line between protecting users and restricting research.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.