{"id":9909,"date":"2026-11-08T15:19:23","date_gmt":"2026-11-08T15:19:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/?p=9909"},"modified":"2026-11-08T15:19:23","modified_gmt":"2026-11-08T15:19:23","slug":"chatgpt-are-you-safe-openai-faces-multi-state-consumer-protection-lawsuits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/chatgpt-are-you-safe-openai-faces-multi-state-consumer-protection-lawsuits\/","title":{"rendered":"ChatGPT Are You Safe? OpenAI Faces Multi-State Consumer Protection Lawsuits"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

10:19 AM, November 8, 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

On October 14, 2026, a coalition<\/a> of eight states sued OpenAI,\u202falleging that the company made dangerous design choices and misrepresented\u202fChatGPT’s safety.\u202fThe\u202fattorneys general from\u202fArkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, and West Virginia filed\u202fcoordinated\u202flawsuits in state courts alleging\u202fnumerous\u202fcauses of action, including\u202fconsumer protection violations.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A key allegation is that OpenAI engineered\u202fChatGPT to mimic human empathy and prolong conversations to keep users engaged. The states argue that this design choice led to “sycophantic tendencies<\/a>” that could cause the chatbot to validate users’\u202fharmful beliefs rather than provide\u202fcautionary\u202fresponses. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Several\u00a0complaints<\/a>\u00a0allege that ChatGPT’s agreeable nature led the chatbot to support users’ paranoid or delusional beliefs. One example is\u00a0Allan Brooks<\/a>, who was allegedly misled into believing that he had developed a revolutionary new mathematical framework and was “on the verge of decrypting the nature of the universe.” The states argue that ChatGPT continuously\u00a0deceived\u00a0Brooks over thousands of messages and even encouraged him to contact the government to share his findings.\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The states argue OpenAI prioritized market dominance over safety and\u202freleased new features without\u202fsufficient testing.\u202f<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

           According to the filings, these design choices could be particularly harmful for teen users struggling with mental health problems, including depression, self-harm, and suicide. The complaints\u202fcite cases of ChatGPT encouraging users experiencing mental health crises to self-isolate and confide in the platform instead of seeking appropriate resources. The states further allege that ChatGPT rationalized some users’ desire to self-harm and even provided information on how to commit suicide. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

           The lawsuits<\/a> also reference instances of ChatGPT allegedly providing advice on firearms, explosives, and the planning of violent attacks.\u202fIn one incident, a teenager allegedly discussed\u202f\u201cvarious scenarios involving gun violence\u201d with the chatbot in the months before committing\u202fa school shooting. After internal\u202fabuse detection systems flagged her account, OpenAI ultimately determined that the conversations did not meet the company’s “threshold of credible and imminent risk of physical harm.\u201d\u202fAs a result, the company deactivated her account but did not contact the authorities or her school.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The states argue OpenAI prioritized market dominance over safety and\u202freleased new features without\u202fsufficient testing.\u202fThe filings observe that OpenAI revised ChatGPT’s response criteria five times in 2025, seemingly in response to\u202fnew\u202flawsuits.\u202fHowever, the states maintain that these improvements do not justify the “egregious failures” of past versions, nor do they make current models safe. \u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f            Multiple states<\/a> also\u202fallege wrongdoing beyond\u202fChatGPT’s conversations with users. These states\u202faccuse OpenAI of recklessly developing AI\u202fagents without appropriate safeguards or public disclosure. They argue that OpenAI is responsible for multiple “rogue AI events” in which agents escaped internal testing environments and accessed the\u202fopen internet. According to the lawsuits, some of these events involved cyberattacks perpetrated by “swarms” of thousands of coordinated\u202fagents. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            These complaints\u202fargue that OpenAI was irresponsible to develop agents without ensuring they were aligned with human values. The states reference warnings from AI leaders, such as Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who recently cautioned<\/a> that swarms of rogue AI agents could launch major cyberattacks, disrupt the entire internet, or even threaten global stability. \u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

             More generally, these allegations\u202freflect public safety concerns about advanced AI.\u202fIn response, these\u202fstates are seeking injunctions to regulate how OpenAI releases its flagship models and require the disclosure of future rogue AI events. As a result, these lawsuits could impact AI development and shape industry safety norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Max Robins<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Max Robins is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law and a staff member of the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. Max received his B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering from Colorado State University.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OpenAI faces mounting challenges over ChatGPT\u2019s design. Will the company be legally responsible for failing to protect users of the chatbot? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9910,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[739,416,740,676],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9909"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9909"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9909\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9911,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9909\/revisions\/9911"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9910"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}