AI Chatbot Lawsuits: ChatGPT, Character.AI Cases (2027)

Yes, families have sued AI chatbot companies over deaths and serious harm, and as of November 6, 2026, none of the cases described on this page has produced a court finding that a chatbot company is liable. The main ruling so far is a May 2025 federal order in Garcia v. Character Technologies, which let product-liability claims proceed at the pleading stage; that case settled and was dismissed with prejudice in October 2026. The private suits against OpenAI in California state court are coordinated as JCCP No. 5431, and we confirmed suits against OpenAI by nine states: Florida on June 1, 2026, and eight more in their own state courts on October 14, 2026.

Status as of November 6, 2026: Garcia was dismissed with prejudice by an October 19, 2026 order after a settlement whose terms are not public. The OpenAI private suits were stayed by a February 3, 2026 coordination order pending assignment of a coordination trial judge, and later developments are not confirmed in the court records we read. No ruling has been found in the nine state suits against OpenAI that we confirmed or in Kentucky's suit against Character Technologies. Character Technologies filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on October 12, 2026.

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org (988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline). If someone is in immediate danger, call 911.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview. It covers lawsuits claiming that a chatbot harmed its own users. It does not cover copyright, data-scraping or defamation suits against AI companies, and suits over AI-generated fake images are covered in our deepfake laws section.

What AI chatbot lawsuits allege

These lawsuits say a chatbot company designed and sold an app that harmed the people using it, and failed to warn them about the risks. They are brought by parents after a child's death or injury, by the estates of people who died, and by adults who say they were harmed. Every factual claim in them is an allegation that the companies dispute.

The Garcia complaint, filed against Character Technologies, its two founders and Google, pleaded strict product liability for failure to warn and for defective design, negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, a survival claim, unjust enrichment, a claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. 501.204) and loss of consortium. In its May 2025 order, the court listed the design defects the complaint alleged: the app fails to confirm users' ages, omits reporting mechanisms, uses characters programmed to employ human mannerisms, and leaves users unable to exclude indecent content.

The suits against OpenAI plead similar theories. The amended complaint in Fox v. OpenAI, dated November 6, 2025 and brought by Jennifer Fox as successor in interest to the decedent, pleads seven causes of action against OpenAI entities and Sam Altman individually: strict product liability for defective design, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200), wrongful death and a survival action.

Government suits use consumer protection laws instead. Florida's attorney general says its complaint alleges that OpenAI and Altman "prioritized speed to market and commercial gain over user safety." Montana's release says its suit alleges OpenAI "misled the public into believing that ChatGPT is a safe and reliable online tool."

Nothing here is a finding that any chatbot caused any person's death or injury. Causation is the question these cases have not reached.

AI chatbot lawsuits: the main cases

This table lists the cases whose court records we read or whose official filings we confirmed. It is not a complete list of every suit filed against a chatbot company.

What the courts have decided so far

Only one written ruling on the core questions in these cases turned up in our search of court records as of November 6, 2026: the Garcia order. Everything else decided so far is procedural.

Garcia v. Character Technologies: the May 2025 order

On May 20, 2025 (filed May 21), Judge Anne C. Conway of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss. At this stage a court takes the complaint's allegations as true and decides only whether the claims may go forward. It decides nothing about whether the allegations are true.

The court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without leave to amend and denied the motions as to the remaining claims. It denied the two founders' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice, allowing them to refile after 90 days of jurisdictional discovery. Alphabet Inc. was dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's own request.

The order's main holdings, all at the pleading stage:

• Product. "Character A.I. is a product for the purposes of Plaintiff's product liability claims so far as Plaintiff's claims arise from defects in the Character A.I. app rather than ideas or expressions within the app."
• First Amendment. The court wrote that it "is not prepared to hold that Character A.I.'s output is speech" at "this stage of the litigation." It did not hold that chatbot output is unprotected speech.
• Google. The allegations were sufficient to proceed on theories that Google was liable as a component-part manufacturer and for aiding and abetting.
• Duty of care. By releasing the app to the public, the defendants "created a foreseeable risk of harm for which Defendants were in a position to control," which was enough to plead a duty for the negligence claims.
• Consumer protection. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim was sufficiently stated.

The order does not discuss Section 230 or arbitration. Headlines that described it as a ruling that AI "is not protected by the First Amendment" overstate it.

How Garcia ended

On January 7, 2026, Character Technologies filed a notice that the parties had agreed to "a mediated settlement in principle to resolve all claims." The same day the court dismissed the case without prejudice, subject to a 90-day window that it later extended twice.

An August 3, 2026 joint motion said the parties had "executed a global settlement agreement and are awaiting necessary judicial approvals of a minor settlement," and described the deal as resolving "this matter (and related matters) as part of a global settlement"; an April 2026 motion had described the related matters as being in other jurisdictions. Reports name suits filed by families in Texas, Colorado and New York. On October 15, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice against Character Technologies, both founders and Google, and on October 19, 2026 the court ordered: "This case is dismissed with prejudice."

The settlement terms are not public in anything we read, and no admission of liability appears in those filings.

The Texas arbitration order

In A.F. v. Character Technologies, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne granted motions to compel arbitration on April 23, 2025, ordering the two minor plaintiffs' claims against Character Technologies, Google, Alphabet and the two founders to arbitration "for the reasons orally assigned." The order states that the court "has not ruled on the arguments posed by the parties as to the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claims and therefore reserves the same." So the question of whether a minor can disaffirm (cancel) an app's terms of service was not decided.

No ruling yet in the OpenAI cases

As of November 6, 2026, our search of reported rulings and the February 3, 2026 coordination order found no ruling in any OpenAI chatbot-harm case on whether ChatGPT is a product, on Section 230, on the First Amendment or on arbitration. News reports say OpenAI denies responsibility in the Raine case.

The OpenAI lawsuits: JCCP 5431 and the Raine case

The private injury and wrongful-death suits against OpenAI filed in California state courts are coordinated in one proceeding, ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5431. On February 3, 2026, Judge Stephen M. Murphy granted the petition for coordination, found the cases complex, and recommended the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, as the site.

The order covers 12 actions: Fox, Shamblin, Madden and Brooks (from Los Angeles Superior Court); Lacey, Enneking, Irwin, Raine (No. CGC-25-628528) and First County Bank (No. CGC-25-631477) (from San Francisco); DeCruise (San Diego); Jacquez (Alameda); and Gray (Los Angeles). The defendants named in the order are OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI OPCO, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Group PBC and Sam Altman. The plaintiffs in Raine and First County Bank opposed coordination.

The order states: "All cases shall be stayed pending the assignment of a Coordination Trial Judge," and the stay precludes discovery motions and "further proceedings on pleading challenges." These are individual lawsuits grouped for pretrial handling, not a class action.

Raine v. OpenAI, brought by Matthew Raine, was filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025, according to news reports. It is one of the 12 coordinated actions, and news reports say OpenAI denies responsibility. Its specific claims are not described here because we did not read its complaint.

Legal theories in AI chatbot lawsuits, explained

These suits rely on state law. The theory chosen shapes what a family has to prove and who can bring the case.

Is ChatGPT a product? Strict product liability

Strict product liability lets an injured person recover for a defective product without proving carelessness, usually under two theories: a design defect, or a failure to warn about risks. The threshold question is whether a chatbot is a "product" at all. In Florida, as the Garcia court put it, "a strict product liability action requires the plaintiff to prove that a 'product' was defective," and courts "generally do not categorize ideas, images, information, words, expressions, or concepts as products."

The Garcia court resolved that by separating the app's design from what it says, treating design features as product-like and leaving ideas and expressions out. It relied in part on a 2023 ruling in the federal social media addiction litigation, In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction, 702 F. Supp. 3d 809 (N.D. Cal. 2023), which treated certain app design features as similar to tangible products. That litigation is explained on our social media harm lawsuit page.

Garcia is a trial-court ruling under Florida law and does not bind other courts. Press reports say OpenAI describes ChatGPT as a software-based service; that is its argument, and no court has ruled on it in the cases we tracked.

Negligence and the duty of care

Negligence requires a legal duty, a breach of it, and harm caused by the breach. The Garcia order noted that under Florida law "a defendant is therefore not liable for another's suicide where the defendant owed no legal duty," then found a duty adequately pleaded on the theory that releasing the app created a foreseeable risk the defendants were in a position to control. Other states may analyze duty differently.

Failure-to-warn claims also need causation. The Garcia order quoted the rule that "the failure to warn was the proximate cause of the injury."

Wrongful death and survival claims

When a person dies, state law usually allows two kinds of claims. A wrongful-death claim compensates family members for their own loss. A survival claim carries on the claims the person who died could have brought.

• California: Code of Civil Procedure 377.60 says a wrongful-death claim "may be asserted by" the decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children and certain others, or by the decedent's personal representative on their behalf. Under section 377.30, a surviving cause of action "passes to the decedent's successor in interest," and the action may be brought by the personal representative or, if none, the successor in interest.
• Florida: Fla. Stat. 768.19 makes a person liable when a death is caused by their "wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty" and the injured person could have sued had they lived.

Garcia was brought by the mother "individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate." Who may sue, and what can be recovered, differs from state to state.

Consumer protection claims

State unfair and deceptive practices laws appear in both private and government suits. Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim in Garcia survived the motion to dismiss. California's Unfair Competition Law, pleaded in Fox, defines unfair competition to include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice," and its remedy section speaks of injunctions and orders to restore money or property, rather than damages for personal injury.

Claims against founders and business partners

Plaintiffs have named more than the company that runs the app. Garcia named Character Technologies' two founders and Google, and the court let the component-part and aiding-and-abetting theories against Google go forward at the pleading stage. The OpenAI coordination order and Florida's complaint name Sam Altman individually. Naming a defendant is an allegation; it is not a finding against that person or company.

Does Section 230 protect AI chatbots?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute defines an "information content provider" as anyone "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information."

The open question is whether a chatbot's own generated replies are information "provided by another." As of November 6, 2026, our search of reported rulings found no decision on that question in a chatbot-harm case, and the Garcia order does not address Section 230.

The closest ruling we found is not a chatbot-harm case. In Bouck v. Meta Platforms (N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-05194), a March 24, 2026 order held at the pleading stage that Meta could plausibly be an information content provider of fraudulent ad text created with its generative AI ad tools. That was a ruling on a motion about ads, not a holding about a companion chatbot's replies.

On the First Amendment, the only ruling we found is Garcia's: the court was "not prepared to hold" that the chatbot's output is speech at that stage of the case.

Arbitration clauses and terms of service

Many apps require users to accept terms that send disputes to private arbitration instead of court. In A.F. v. Character Technologies, the federal court in Texas granted motions to compel arbitration of two minors' claims on April 23, 2025. The written order says that, in view of procedural agreements the parties reached, the court did not rule on their arguments about whether the claims are arbitrable and reserved them.

That leaves open a question that matters to families: whether a minor can disaffirm (cancel) terms of service, an argument the Garcia plaintiff also raised, saying that to the extent a contract existed, she disaffirmed it. No court decided it in the orders we read.

State attorney general lawsuits against OpenAI and Character.AI

As of November 6, 2026, we confirmed suits against OpenAI by nine states, each in its own state court. These are separate suits, not one joint case.

Florida filed earliest, on June 1, 2026, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County. Its defendants are OpenAI Global, LLC; OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.); OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Group PBC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; and Sam Altman. The attorney general's office called it the "first-in-the-nation state-led lawsuit against OpenAI" and said the State "seeks damages on behalf of the people of Florida and an end to the deceptive and dangerous practices." The same release says the state opened a separate criminal investigation the month before and that it is ongoing.

On October 14, 2026, eight more states filed. Arkansas's announcement also named Utah among that day's filers, but we found no Utah filing as of November 6, 2026. The eight suits we confirmed:

Every claim in these suits is an allegation. As of November 6, 2026, no ruling in any of them was found.

Kentucky is the only state suit against Character Technologies we found. Filed January 8, 2026, in Franklin Circuit Court (No. 26-CI-00029) against the company and its two founders, it pleads the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, unfair collection and exploitation of children's data, the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, state privacy protections and unjust enrichment, and seeks an injunction, restitution and civil penalties.

These suits enforce general state laws. Several states have also passed laws written specifically for companion chatbots. California's SB 243 and Oregon's SB 1546 let injured individuals sue, while most others leave enforcement to the attorney general. Those statutes are covered on our AI companion chatbot laws page, with California's SB 1119 in our news coverage.

The Character Technologies bankruptcy

Character Technologies, Inc. filed a Chapter 11 petition on October 12, 2026, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (No. 26-11603, Judge Brendan L. Shannon). A bankruptcy filing can affect claims against the company, and the bankruptcy court controls how that happens. Anyone with a claim against the company should get advice from a lawyer about the bankruptcy.

Garcia was settled before the petition and dismissed with prejudice after it, and the Garcia docket entries we read do not mention the bankruptcy. Our news report on the Character.AI bankruptcy and the state attorneys general's notice covers the filing in more detail.

Is there a deadline to sue an AI company?

Yes. Deadlines (statutes of limitations) are set by each state, are often short, and differ in how they treat minors. These are examples only:

• California: Code of Civil Procedure 335.1 gives two years for an action "for injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another." Section 352(a) provides that time while a person entitled to sue is under the age of majority "is not part of the time limited" for bringing the action.
• Florida: Fla. Stat. 95.11(5) gives two years for an action founded on negligence and for wrongful death. Section 95.11(3)(d) gives four years for an action for injury to a person "founded on the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of personal property" that is not permanently built into real property. Whether that longer period reaches a claim about an app is not settled, so which limit applies depends on the claim and the facts. Florida pauses the clock for a minor only in narrow cases, such as when no parent or guardian exists or one has an interest adverse to the minor (95.051(1)(i)), and even then the action must be brought within 7 years.

How these rules apply to a parent's own wrongful-death claim, and when a claim starts running, are questions for a lawyer in your state. State-specific AI rules are summarized on our California AI laws and Florida AI laws pages.

Federal action: the FTC study and the AI LEAD Act

On September 11, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission issued orders under section 6(b) of the FTC Act to seven companies with consumer chatbots, including Character Technologies and OpenAI OpCo. That is an information-gathering study, not an enforcement action against them; our companion chatbot laws page covers it.

In Congress, the AI LEAD Act (S. 2937), introduced on September 29, 2025, by Senators Durbin and Hawley, would create a federal civil action. Section 301 provides that the U.S. Attorney General, state attorneys general, "an individual or the legal representative of such an individual, or a class of individuals" may sue "a developer or deployer for a violation of section 101, 102, or 201." It is a bill, not law. Its latest recorded action, as of the status record we read on November 6, 2026, is referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For the wider legal landscape, see our AI laws overview.

What to Watch in 2027

• JCCP 5431 (OpenAI private suits): assignment of a coordination trial judge, after which pleading challenges stayed by the February 3, 2026 order can proceed. No date set in the records we read.
• State attorney general suits against OpenAI: OpenAI's responses and early motions in each state's court. No dates set in the records we read.
• Character Technologies bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Del. No. 26-11603): the sale process and any rulings on claims against the company. No confirmed date in the records we read.
• Kentucky v. Character Technologies and A.D. v. Character Technologies: how each case proceeds after the bankruptcy petition. No dates set in the records we read.
• AI LEAD Act (S. 2937): the 119th Congress ends at noon on January 3, 2027, under section 1 of the Twentieth Amendment. A bill not enacted by then would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress.
• State companion chatbot laws: several have effective dates in 2027; our AI companion chatbot laws page tracks them.

How to evaluate your options

If a family member died or was seriously harmed and you believe an AI chatbot played a part, the most reliable step is to speak with a licensed attorney who follows this litigation. Whether a claim may exist depends on specific facts, including which app was used, when and how, the nature of the harm, and your state's deadlines.

It helps to gather what you can: medical and mental-health records, account details and usernames, the devices used, and a timeline with dates. Avoid deleting the account or chat history, because records can matter later. Many attorneys who handle these cases offer a free consultation and work on contingency, meaning they are paid only out of any recovery; terms vary, so ask.

No lawyer can promise an outcome. As of November 6, 2026, none of the cases on this page has reached a verdict.

Where to get help now

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org (988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline). If someone is in immediate danger, call 911.

You can also text HOME to 741741 to reach Crisis Text Line, which is free, available 24/7 and confidential.

For legal help that is not urgent, the lawyer referral service run by your state or local bar association can connect you with a licensed attorney, and the American Bar Association keeps a directory of those services. If cost is a barrier, the Legal Services Corporation's legal aid finder lists free civil legal aid programs by state.

This page is general legal information about lawsuits in U.S. federal and state courts, current as of November 6, 2026. It is not legal advice. For advice about your situation, talk to a lawyer licensed in your state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you sue ChatGPT or OpenAI?

You sue the company, not the chatbot, and families have sued OpenAI. As of November 6, 2026, the private injury and wrongful-death suits filed in California state courts are coordinated as JCCP No. 5431, with San Francisco Superior Court recommended as the site, and were stayed by a February 3, 2026 order until a coordination trial judge is assigned. No court ruling on liability was found in any of them.

What is the Raine v. OpenAI lawsuit?

Raine v. OpenAI is a suit filed in San Francisco Superior Court (No. CGC-25-628528) in August 2025, according to news reports, with Matthew Raine as a plaintiff. It is one of 12 actions coordinated in JCCP No. 5431 by a February 3, 2026 order, over the Raine plaintiffs' opposition. News reports say OpenAI denies responsibility, and no ruling on the claims was found as of November 6, 2026.

What happened in Megan Garcia v. Character Technologies?

Megan Garcia sued Character Technologies, its two founders and Google in federal court in Orlando in October 2024 after her son's death. In May 2025 the court let most claims proceed at the pleading stage, holding the app is a product for claims about its design, and dismissed only the emotional-distress claim. The case later settled and was dismissed with prejudice on October 19, 2026; no court found anyone liable.

Did Character.AI settle?

Yes, in Garcia v. Character Technologies. The parties reported a settlement in principle on January 7, 2026, later filings described a global settlement that also covers related matters, which an April 2026 filing placed in other jurisdictions, and the federal court in Florida dismissed the case with prejudice on October 19, 2026. The terms are not public, and the filings we read record no admission of liability.

Is there a class action against OpenAI over ChatGPT?

No class action is listed in the records we read as of November 6, 2026. The private suits are individual cases, 12 of which a February 3, 2026 order coordinated in California state court as JCCP No. 5431. Separately, we confirmed suits against OpenAI by nine states in their own courts.

Does Section 230 protect AI companies from these lawsuits?

Undecided for chatbots. Section 230 shields an online service from being treated as the publisher of information provided by someone else, and the open question is whether a chatbot's own replies count. As of November 6, 2026, we found no ruling on that question in a chatbot-harm case, and the May 2025 Garcia order did not address Section 230.

Which states have sued OpenAI?

As of November 6, 2026, we confirmed nine: Florida filed on June 1, 2026, and Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia each filed in their own state courts on October 14, 2026. Arkansas's announcement also named Utah, but we found no Utah filing. They mostly rely on state consumer protection laws. These are allegations, and no ruling was found.

Is there a deadline to sue an AI chatbot company?

Yes, and it depends on the state. In California and Florida, negligence and wrongful-death claims generally must be filed within two years, though Florida allows four years for some product-injury claims, and the two states treat minors differently. Do not assume any single deadline applies; a licensed attorney in your state can check.

Do I need to pay a lawyer upfront?

Often not. Many attorneys who handle these cases offer a free consultation and work on contingency, meaning they are paid only out of any recovery. Terms vary, so ask before you sign anything.