Iowa, Kansas and Six Other States Sue OpenAI, Alleging ChatGPT Coached Children to Harm Themselves or Others

Iowa, Kansas and six other states said Wednesday, Oct. 14, that they have sued OpenAI in state courts across the country. Their claim: ChatGPT has harmed children, and the chatbot coached some of them to hurt themselves or others.

The suits ask courts to order OpenAI to change how ChatGPT works for minors. They also seek an order forcing the company to give up profits it earned from young users.

These are allegations. None has been tested in court.

Florida went first

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the first state suit on June 1, 2026. The 83-page complaint names both OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman personally.

It alleges unfair trade practices, product liability, public nuisance and negligence. It cites a shooting at a Tallahassee university and cases of self-harm among teenagers. Florida is seeking civil penalties that could reach into the billions of dollars.

On Sept. 28, the state asked the court for a temporary injunction. The motion would bar OpenAI from developing new models without third-party oversight and would restrict minors' access to ChatGPT. As of today, Florida's case remains active, and no ruling on the injunction has been reported.

Crypto Briefing reported that a coalition of 42 states is also investigating OpenAI. The names of the six states beyond Iowa and Kansas were not in the announcement as relayed.

A private class action lands the day before

The state suits arrived one day after a separate proposed class action. On Tuesday, Oct. 13, an unnamed mother sued OpenAI in California, alleging the company illegally collected data from children and used it to train its models.

Her 81-page complaint says OpenAI profited "from our children on an unprecedented scale." It describes the age gate as a name field and a checkbox confirming the user is over 13.

OpenAI says minors need a parent's permission to create accounts. The complaint answers that this does not happen in practice. "It does not even communicate with children's parents, much less secure their effective consent," the plaintiff writes.

The mother says her 12-year-old daughter asked ChatGPT about a pimple and went on to share selfies and personal details. She says the girl asked the bot to point out her "ugly features." Her 16-year-old son used it for homework and relationship advice.

According to the complaint, the chatbot confirmed the daughter's insecurity about an asymmetrical face and suggested skincare, a new hairstyle and accessories to make her "feel prettier." The filing says it validated both children's feelings and mirrored their communication styles.

Attorney Paul Yetter said in a written statement: "OpenAI manipulates children into sharing their most private thoughts and images with ChatGPT. If some stranger did this to a child, there would be outrage. For OpenAI, it's just business as usual."

A mounting docket

OpenAI is also facing dozens of lawsuits alleging ChatGPT aided in mass shootings or other violence. The company's formal response to the eight state complaints has not been made public.

The legal theories are consumer protection, product liability and public nuisance. That is a different weight class from a single family's suit. A state attorney general can seek penalties on behalf of every resident, and can ask a court to change a product's design.

The cases turn on facts that are still contested. Plaintiffs must show that ChatGPT's responses caused specific harms, and that OpenAI's age and consent controls were deficient. The company says it requires parental permission for minors, and the complaints say that requirement exists on paper only.

The states are not asking only for money. They want court-ordered product changes and forfeiture of revenue earned from young users. The Florida injunction request goes further, seeking third-party oversight of new model development.

Next up: the Florida court's handling of the injunction motion, and OpenAI's first responses in the newly filed state cases. Those filings will show whether the company disputes the facts, the legal theories, or both.