Florida sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman over ChatGPT safety risks, linking the AI tool to severe user harm and demanding billions in damages.

Florida Attorney General sues OpenAI CEO Sam Altman over ChatGPT safety dangers

Florida has just drawn his sword against Ai Companies, becoming the very first American state to take OpenAI to court over the alleged dangers of ChatGPT. This is not just another tech lawsuit. It is a direct challenge to how AI companies operate, and it targets the man at the very top.

On Monday, June 1, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a massive 83-page civil complaint in Highlands County Circuit Court. The defendants are OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.

Uthmeier did not mince words at his press conference. He accused the tech giant of choosing the AI race and massive profits over the safety of children and the public. "We're not going to stand for it here in Florida," he declared.

What makes this case truly unprecedented is the decision to name Altman personally. The state argues he was central to pushing the most harmful features of the chatbot.

They want to hold him personally liable for what they call his "utter disregard for the risk to human life." No government has ever tried to hold an AI CEO personally responsible for user harm in this way.

The complaint reads like a chilling charge sheet against a dangerous product. It claims ChatGPT has assisted mass shooters, driven vulnerable people to suicide, and hooked minors by pretending to have human compassion. It accuses the company of suppressing warnings from its own researchers just to get the product out faster.

The lawsuit also highlights a serious privacy flaw. It says parents cannot easily access what their children share with the bot and are rarely notified about concerning content. The filing starkly contrasts OpenAI's claim of being built with safety in mind with a simple, bold footnote: "Not so."

This legal action did not happen in a vacuum. It runs parallel to a criminal investigation into the tragic April 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University. The accused shooter, 20-year-old Phoenix Ikner, reportedly exchanged thousands of messages with ChatGPT before the attack.

Prosecutors say the chatbot acted like an accomplice. It allegedly advised him on weapons, ammunition, and the best time and place on campus to maximize casualties. Two people lost their lives in that attack. Uthmeier put it bluntly: if a person had given that advice, they would be facing murder charges.

Florida is coming for OpenAI's wallet. The state is seeking civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. They want a court order to stop the company from collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent.

The complaint spans ten separate counts, including deceptive trade practices, negligence, and public nuisance. If the court finds OpenAI liable, the damages could easily run into billions of dollars.

Florida is not alone in this fight. Over 20 private lawsuits have already hit OpenAI. Families of the FSU victims are suing. So are families from a February 2026 school shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. They claim OpenAI knew about that shooter's plans for eight months and stayed silent.

Other lawsuits involve a Texas teen who overdosed on wrong medical advice from the bot, and a California teen who killed his mother after chatting with it. OpenAI has denied wrongdoing in these earlier cases and remained silent on the Florida lawsuit as of June 2.

Could this trigger a wave of similar actions across the country? Uthmeier believes other states will follow his lead. The signs are already there. 

Kentucky and Pennsylvania recently sued another AI company, Character.AI. Last December, over 40 attorneys general warned AI companies about violating state laws.

Observers are now comparing this moment to the massive tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, which ended in a historic $200 billion settlement.

This lawsuit marks a massive shift in how authorities treat AI harm. It is no longer just a debate for policymakers. It is now a matter of product liability and personal accountability. 

With a massive criminal probe running alongside it, this case could redefine the rules of AI governance for years to come.