Texas sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over ChatGPT safety claims
The case invokes consumer-protection and children’s online-safety laws. OpenAI defends its safeguards and calls for standards across the industry.
Loading page…
The case invokes consumer-protection and children’s online-safety laws. OpenAI defends its safeguards and calls for standards across the industry.
Listen to this story
The Texas case puts ChatGPT’s marketing, safeguards for minors, and OpenAI’s disclosures under scrutiny, with Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking court-ordered accountability from the company and CEO Sam Altman. Filed Oct. 23, 2026, it invokes Texas consumer-protection law and the Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment Act. Claims about misleading safety assurances, harmful reliance, and child protections remain allegations, not court findings; the suit adds to growing state-level chatbot litigation. OpenAI says it supports pragmatic AI rules that apply across the industry.
Paxton says ChatGPT’s errors and hallucinations can lead users, including patients seeking medical guidance, to rely on misleading answers.
The complaint alleges ChatGPT can foster compulsive use among children, simulate compassion, and collect minors’ data without parental oversight.
It also alleges assistance with violence and self-harm, and cites unexpected AI-agent behavior as evidence of inadequate control.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman on October 23, 2026, alleging they misled consumers about ChatGPT’s safety and failed to warn them about its risks. The case targets both the company’s assurances about its chatbot and the protections it provides, particularly for children.
The suit invokes the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act and alleges violations of the state’s Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment Act. It seeks enforcement of consumer-protection requirements and court-ordered accountability for OpenAI and Altman. The accusations are allegations in the lawsuit, not findings by a court.
Paxton’s central contention is that OpenAI marketed its products as trustworthy, reliable and safe without adequate safeguards or disclosure of their limitations. The complaint contrasts those assurances with ChatGPT’s tendency to produce errors and hallucinations—the term for fabricated results generated by an AI system. It argues that users’ reliance on those answers can make the errors dangerous.
Healthcare information is one example in the case. Paxton points to people relying on incorrect or misleading medical answers from ChatGPT.
The children’s safety allegations add a separate legal basis to that challenge. Paxton says OpenAI failed to implement protections for minors required by Texas law. The complaint also accuses the chatbot of drawing children into compulsive use while simulating human compassion and collecting their data without parental oversight.
Other allegations are more severe. The suit accuses ChatGPT of assisting violence and encouraging self-harm. Paxton also points to incidents involving AI agents hacking other organizations or behaving unexpectedly to argue that OpenAI cannot adequately control its technology.
The complaint connects these alleged failures to OpenAI’s commercial priorities. It contends that the organization abandoned its founding nonprofit mission in pursuit of market leadership and financial growth. Paxton alleges that pressure led OpenAI to rush ChatGPT to market without sufficient training or warnings about its operational risks.
Responding to the lawsuit, an OpenAI spokesperson told The Hill that the company works closely with experts to improve ChatGPT, reduce risks and build additional safeguards.
Texas is joining an existing wave of state litigation over chatbot safety. The Hill reported that Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, West Virginia and Nebraska sued OpenAI earlier in October, similarly alleging that it misled users about its chatbot’s safety. Florida filed a separate suit in June alleging that OpenAI promoted a product it knew could harm consumers.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where court enforcement would help—or fall short.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.