Texas Sues OpenAI and Sam Altman Over ChatGPT Safety Claims: What the Lawsuit Seeks

Texas has opened a new front in the legal fight over chatbot safety. Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, accusing the company of misleading Texans about how safe and reliable ChatGPT is, and of failing to protect children who use the chatbot. The case stands out because it names the chief executive personally and asks a court to restrict how the product can be offered in Texas.

The lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2026, in Collin County District Court, according to reports on the filing, and it drew wide attention when it was reported on October 26. This is a set of allegations made by the state. A court has not decided whether OpenAI broke the law, and OpenAI disputes the central claims.

What Texas alleges

At the heart of the complaint is a claim about trust. Texas argues that OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as a trustworthy product while knowing, according to the state, that it could produce harmful information and encourage risky behaviour in vulnerable users. The state says the company put commercial growth and competition ahead of consumer protection, and that it did not warn users adequately about the risks of relying on an AI system for sensitive questions.

The complaint is brought under two Texas laws, according to reports: the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, which covers misleading business practices, and the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act, known as the SCOPE Act, which places duties on online platforms used by minors. Texas says the combination matters because the case is not only about bad answers. It is about whether parents had a real way to control, verify, and supervise a minor’s use of the product.

Texas also argues that the design of the chatbot itself creates risk, because conversational AI can encourage users to form an emotional attachment to the system, and that can be especially risky for children and teenagers. The complaint points to cases in which users turned to ChatGPT for help with health, self-harm, and other sensitive topics, including the death of a Texas teenager in 2025 and a school shooting in Florida. Those examples are presented in the filing as allegations, and readers should treat them as the state’s argument, not as a proven finding.

The complaint also concerns younger users directly. Texas says that even ChatGPT for Teens, which launched in August, falls short of what parents need. According to one account of the petition, the filing argues that a teenager could spend a long time discussing self-harm without a parent receiving an alert. That claim will turn on exactly what safeguards were in place, what parents could see, and what OpenAI knew at the time.

Why Altman is named personally

Naming a chief executive personally is unusual, and Texas appears to have done it on purpose. The petition argues that Altman directed the conduct at issue, made deceptive statements himself, and overruled safety staff who wanted more time to test a model, according to reports on the filing. That is a strong claim, and it will be one of the first things OpenAI’s lawyers challenge. Companies are normally sued as companies, and courts set a high bar before holding an individual executive liable for a company’s actions.

The personal naming also changes the public argument. OpenAI has responded through a spokesperson, saying it has worked with experts to reduce risks and build extra safeguards, including parental controls, age prediction, and a more protective experience for users under 18. The company said governments have a role in setting strong safety standards, and that it wants to work with Texas and other states on pragmatic policies that apply to the whole AI industry.

What Texas is asking the court to do

The relief Texas seeks goes well beyond a fine. First, Texas asks the court to bar ChatGPT for minors in Texas until age verification and parental controls are in place. In practice, that would force OpenAI to build a Texas-specific gate for younger users, or to stop serving them in the state until it can satisfy a court.

Second, Texas asks that new AI models be approved by an independent evaluator before they can be released in Texas. That would insert a third party between a company and its product launch, at least for this state, and it would raise hard questions about who the evaluator would be, what standard they would apply, and how quickly they would have to decide. Supporters would say it is the only way to check safety claims before millions of people use a new model. Critics would say it would slow releases and create a patchwork of state rules.

Third, Texas seeks financial penalties, including a reported $10,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, and monetary relief of more than $1 million, according to reports on the petition. The final amount, if Texas wins, would depend on how a court counts violations and what it finds about the company’s conduct.

Where this case fits in a wider wave

Texas is not acting alone. According to one report, Texas is at least the tenth state to take OpenAI to court over chatbot safety.

There is also a practical question for users outside Texas. A company that has to build age verification for Texas, parental alerts for Texas, and a pre-release review step for Texas will face pressure to apply similar changes everywhere, simply because running fifty different versions of a product is costly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has a court found that OpenAI broke the law in Texas?

No. Texas has filed a lawsuit making allegations about misleading safety claims and harm to users, including children. Those allegations have not been proven in court, and OpenAI says it has built safeguards including parental controls, age prediction, and a more protective experience for users under 18.

What is Texas asking the court to order?

Texas is asking for restrictions on ChatGPT for minors in the state, independent evaluation before new models can be released in Texas, financial penalties, and other relief. According to reports on the petition, the financial request includes $10,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, and monetary relief of more than $1 million.

Does this case affect ChatGPT users outside Texas?

Not directly, at least for now. The case is filed in Texas and seeks orders that apply in Texas. In practice, though, changes built for one large state often influence how a company designs its product everywhere, so users elsewhere should watch how the case develops.