Eight state attorneys general (AGs) filed separate but coordinated lawsuits against OpenAI on October 14, alleging that the company misled consumers about ChatGPT’s safety and failed to adequately protect children and other users from harmful interactions.
The lawsuits illustrate how state AGs are relying on existing consumer protection laws, rather than waiting for a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, to challenge both how artificial intelligence (AI) products are marketed and how they are designed and operate.
Eight State AGs Challenge OpenAI’s ChatGPT Safety Claims
The lawsuits rely on a familiar state AG enforcement tool: consumer protection law. The states generally allege that OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as safe while designing the chatbot to be highly agreeable and engaging in ways that could cause users to place undue trust in its responses.
According to the complaints, those features contributed to harmful interactions, including allegedly reinforcing delusions, encouraging dangerous conduct, and assisting with self-harm or violence.
The lawsuits emphasize minors and other vulnerable users, raising concerns about age-related safeguards and the collection and retention of young users’ personal information.
Some complaints include additional statutory claims. Montana invokes its Consumer Data Privacy Act, and Nebraska invokes its Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act.
Arkansas asserts claims under its Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, along with common-law claims for negligence, strict liability for design defect and failure to warn, unjust enrichment, and public nuisance.
OpenAI disputes the states’ allegations. A company spokesperson pointed to age-specific safeguards, including parental controls, break reminders, and age-appropriate model protections, and said OpenAI is working with states on AI policies that would apply across the industry. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and OpenAI will have the opportunity to contest them in each proceeding.
States Seek Changes to ChatGPT, Not Just Monetary Penalties
The requested relief is broad. Beyond civil penalties and damages, the states seek disgorgement of profits generated from young users and injunctions requiring changes to how ChatGPT operates.
Arkansas, for example, asks the court to bar further advanced AI testing and the creation of models capable of recursive self-improvement until adequate safeguards are in place, and to require clear and conspicuous disclosures of ChatGPT’s material risks.
Other requested remedies include deletion of certain user data and limits on collecting minors’ data.
The requested relief would reach prospective product design, testing, and deployment, instead of focusing solely on past conduct.
The filings build on an enforcement effort that began in June, when Florida AG James Uthmeier sued OpenAI alleging that it knowingly released an unsafe product.
The parallel state court litigations create practical litigation challenges. Because the AGs filed in their own state courts, OpenAI faces eight separate procedural regimes, judges, and discovery schedules, and AG enforcement actions are generally difficult to remove to federal court.
In Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state’s parens patriae action is not a removal mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act. Documents, testimony, and admissions produced in one proceeding may surface in others, and plaintiffs’ counsel in private suits frequently draw on government complaints and discovery.
Why It Matters
The coordinated lawsuits illustrate that state AGs are not waiting for AI-specific legislation before scrutinizing AI products. As Kansas AG Kris Kobach put it, the states “are not going to hold our breath” waiting for federal rules.
The suits also reflect a broader pattern. State AGs have increasingly turned to consumer protection law to pursue technology companies over alleged harms to minors, first against social media platforms and now against AI developers. At least seven of the October 14 complaints were brought with the same outside counsel, which may help explain their similar allegations.
The cases are likely to test several unsettled defenses in the AI context. These include whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act applies to AI-generated content, whether the First Amendment limits claims or injunctions involving model outputs, and whether product liability doctrines for tangible goods extend to software and AI services.
In Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (M.D. Fla. 2025), a federal court largely denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and declined, at the pleading stage, to hold that an AI chatbot’s large language model-generated output constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment, leaving the broader constitutional question unresolved. Early rulings on motions to dismiss in these cases could shape how courts nationwide treat similar claims.
At the same time, AI-specific requirements are taking shape. Colorado’s Conversational Artificial Intelligence Services Act takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Colorado Department of Law released an interim draft of implementing rules on October 6, with a rulemaking hearing set for October 26.
Companies developing or deploying consumer-facing AI should consider reviewing:
- Safety and marketing claims. Are public statements about safety, accuracy, privacy, or safeguards consistent with the product’s actual capabilities and limitations?
- Product design and testing. Can the company document the basis for safety-related representations and the safeguards used to address known risks?
- Parental controls. Are parental controls effective in practice, and do disclosures accurately describe their limits?
- Emerging AI-specific requirements. Is the company tracking new state laws and rules, and mapping their requirements to existing product features and disclosures?
- Litigation readiness. Are relevant internal communications, testing records, and risk assessments preserved under applicable legal holds? Is the company prepared to respond to civil investigative demands and coordinate litigation across multiple jurisdictions?
The Troutman Pepper Locke State AG Team will continue to monitor these cases and state AG enforcement activity involving AI. For questions about these developments, contact Troutman Pepper Locke’s State Attorneys General team, whose attorneys, together with the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement team, can help companies evaluate AI safety and marketing claims and prepare for state AG inquiries.