Florida Sues OpenAI Over ChatGPT — What the Lawsuit Says

By Steve Levine · Updated June 14, 2026 · 9 min read

Florida Attorney General Lawsuit Against OpenAI and ChatGPT

Published: June 14, 2026

On June 1, 2026, the State of Florida sued the company behind ChatGPT. The complaint, filed by the Florida Attorney General's Department of Legal Affairs, accuses OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, of marketing ChatGPT as safe and reliable while, the State says, the product misled consumers, harvested children's data, and gave dangerous advice that contributed to real-world tragedies in Florida. The first question we got about it is the one worth answering up front: is this a class action? It is not. Here is what the case actually is, and what it alleges.

Is This a Class Action? No.

This is a government enforcement action, not a class action. The plaintiff is the State of Florida, acting through the Attorney General's Department of Legal Affairs, which is authorized to enforce consumer-protection law in the public interest. There is no class of consumers, no class representatives, and no class members. Nobody signs up, opts in, or files a claim.

That distinction matters for readers of this site. A class action is brought by private plaintiffs on behalf of a defined group, and if it settles, class members can usually file claims for money or benefits. A state enforcement action is the government suing on behalf of the public. The remedies it seeks — civil penalties paid to the State, court orders changing how a company behaves, and damages to the State — do not create a consumer payout you can claim. So there is no settlement fund, no deadline, and no claim form here. If that ever changes, we will cover it separately.

Who Is Being Sued, and Where

The complaint names a set of OpenAI entities — OpenAI Global, LLC; OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.); OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Group PBC; and OpenAI Holdings, LLC — referred to together as OpenAI. It also names Sam Altman, OpenAI's CEO and co-founder, in his personal capacity, alleging he personally directed the design, safety policies, and deployment decisions at the center of the case.

The case sits in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Highlands County, Florida, filed June 1, 2026 at 9:34:59 a.m. under Florida e-filing number 249302659. The cover page leaves the formal case number blank because this copy was generated when the complaint was first submitted through Florida's e-filing system — the e-filing number is not the final court case number. The State brings the case exclusively under Florida law and expressly disclaims any federal cause of action, even where it cites federal statutes to illustrate public policy.

What FDUTPA Is

Most of the case runs through the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA (Section 501.201 of the Florida Statutes and following). FDUTPA prohibits unfair methods of competition and unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in trade or commerce, and it is meant to be read broadly to protect consumers. When the Attorney General enforces it in the public interest, the statute allows civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each willful violation, plus injunctive relief. A violation is "willful" if the defendant knew or should have known its conduct was unfair or deceptive.

The Core Allegations

The State's theory is that OpenAI sold trust. According to the complaint, OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as safe, reliable, and suitable for families and teens — including messaging aimed at parents and campaigns showing the chatbot running a family farm, helping a family business, and managing health and self-care — while the product, the State alleges, was none of those things in the ways that mattered.

The complaint pulls together several strands the State says add up to unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive conduct:

• Marketing the product as trustworthy and capable while, the State alleges, it produced false, hallucinated, or dangerous output — citing research on news-accuracy errors, fabricated legal citations that have drawn court sanctions, and incorrect financial and medical guidance.
• Designing features the State characterizes as engineered for engagement — a "memory" feature on by default, and what the complaint calls "sycophancy," a tendency to agree with and flatter users — that it says draw people, including minors, into prolonged and unhealthy use.
• Making the product broadly accessible to children with, the complaint alleges, no real age verification and no mechanism for parental notice or consent, which the State ties to the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
• Rushing models to market, the State alleges, ahead of competitors and without adequate safety testing, over the objections of OpenAI's own safety personnel.

The complaint devotes substantial attention to alleged harms to minors and to people in mental-health crises, drawing on outside studies and on other lawsuits already on file around the country, including a widely reported case brought by the family of a teenager who died by suicide after extended conversations with the chatbot. We are not going to reproduce the graphic details here. The relevant point for this explainer is legal: the State uses those accounts to argue the alleged dangers were foreseeable, substantial, not outweighed by the product's benefits, and not reasonably avoidable by the public — the elements of an "unfair" practice under Florida law.

The Counts

The complaint lays out ten counts. In plain terms:

• Counts I, II, and III — FDUTPA violations for unfair and immoral practices, unconscionable practices, and deceptive practices.
• Count IV — a FDUTPA violation built on alleged COPPA non-compliance, on the theory that violating a law protecting children's data is itself an unfair practice under Florida law. The State is careful to say it is not suing to enforce COPPA directly.
• Counts V and VI — negligence and gross negligence.
• Counts VII and VIII — strict product liability for design defect and for failure to warn, treating ChatGPT as a product under Florida law.
• Count IX — fraudulent misrepresentation, aimed at OpenAI's safety claims.
• Count X — public nuisance under Sections 60.05 and 823.01 of the Florida Statutes and common law, asking the court to "abate" what the State calls a danger to public health and safety.

What the State Is Asking For

The prayer for relief asks the court to declare that OpenAI violated FDUTPA and created a public nuisance, to permanently enjoin the challenged practices, and to order specific changes — most notably, to stop collecting data from children under 13 without notice and verifiable parental consent, and to stop misrepresenting or failing to warn about ChatGPT's risks. The State also seeks civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation, damages (including treble and punitive damages), and its fees and costs. It demands a jury trial.

Again, none of those remedies is a consumer claim. Civil penalties go to the State. The injunctions are about how OpenAI must operate going forward, especially as to children. There is no fund to apply to.

Why It Matters Even Though You Cannot Claim Anything

State enforcement actions like this one tend to move the ground under consumer products even when no individual gets a check. If Florida prevails or settles, the practical results could include changes to age verification, parental controls, default data settings, and the warnings ChatGPT shows users — changes that would likely roll out well beyond Florida. Enforcement actions also frequently run in parallel with private litigation, and findings or admissions in one case can shape others.

It is also a notable test of old legal tools on new technology: whether a chatbot is a "product" for strict-liability purposes, whether its outputs can be a "public nuisance," and whether a generative-AI company's safety marketing can be "deceptive" under a state consumer-protection statute. Those questions are a long way from resolved, and a complaint is only one side's allegations — OpenAI has not yet answered, and none of the claims has been proven.

Read the Complaint

You can read the State of Florida's complaint against OpenAI and Sam Altman below.

Related AI Coverage

We are tracking artificial intelligence across several consumer-law fronts:

• xAI Grok deepfake class action — a separate, private class action over AI-generated images
• Apple Siri eavesdropping settlement update — an AI-assistant privacy case that did settle
• Latest class action news and updates

How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?

Find all the latest class actions you can qualify for by getting notified of new lawsuits as soon as they are open to claims:

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Florida ChatGPT lawsuit a class action?

No. It is a law-enforcement action brought by the Florida Attorney General's Department of Legal Affairs in the name of the State of Florida. There is no class of plaintiffs and no class members. The State is enforcing the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and common-law claims in the public interest, seeking civil penalties, injunctions, and damages. Because there is no class, there is nothing for individual consumers to file or claim.

Who is being sued and where?

The complaint names several OpenAI entities — OpenAI Global, LLC; OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.); OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Group PBC; and OpenAI Holdings, LLC — collectively referred to as OpenAI, along with CEO and co-founder Sam Altman in his personal capacity. The case was filed June 1, 2026 in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, Florida.

What does the complaint allege?

The State alleges OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as safe, reliable, and trustworthy while, according to the complaint, the product gave dangerous advice, encouraged self-harm, was accessible to children without age verification or parental consent, collected data in ways the State says violate COPPA, and was rushed to market without adequate safety testing. The legal counts include unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices under FDUTPA, a COPPA-based FDUTPA count, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability for design defect and failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, and public nuisance.

Can I get money or file a claim from this lawsuit?

No. There is no settlement, no settlement fund, and no claim form. The lawsuit asks the court for civil penalties payable to the State, injunctions changing how OpenAI operates in Florida, and damages to the State. None of that creates a consumer payout you can claim. If a settlement or judgment that affects consumers ever results, it would be reported separately.

What is FDUTPA?

FDUTPA is the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201 of the Florida Statutes and following. It prohibits unfair methods of competition and unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in trade or commerce. The Attorney General can enforce it in the public interest and seek civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation, along with injunctive relief.

Sources

• Complaint, Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. OpenAI Global, LLC, et al., Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, Florida (filed June 1, 2026; Florida e-filing number 249302659)
• Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201 et seq., Florida Statutes; Sections 60.05 and 823.01, Florida Statutes
• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.; 16 C.F.R. Part 312

About This Page

This article summarizes a public court filing in Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. OpenAI Global, LLC, et al., filed June 1, 2026 in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, Florida. The allegations described here are the State's claims; they are unproven, and OpenAI and Sam Altman are entitled to respond and defend in court. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site and is not a law firm, the Florida Attorney General, OpenAI, or a party to this case. This is a state enforcement action, not a class action — there is no settlement, fund, or claim form for consumers. This page is general information, not legal advice. If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available in the U.S. by calling or texting 988, the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

For more class actions keep scrolling below.