Texas sues OpenAI and asks a court to keep children off ChatGPT

What Texas actually filed

As www.techtimes.co.uk reported, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on 23 October 2026. It follows eight other state lawsuits filed on 14 October, which brings the total to nine states taking action over ChatGPT's safety.

One caution on that figure: the nine actions are separate cases, not one joint lawsuit. They also do not cover every legal fight OpenAI is in, and a lawsuit alone is not proof that a company broke the law.

Texas is asking for civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation. But the money is only part of the request. The state also wants the court to change how the product works and who is allowed to use it.

What Texas wants a court to order

The filing asks for three big changes. First, minors would be barred from using the chatbot. Second, every new AI model would have to go through independent expert review before release. Third, the chatbot's replies would be limited when conversations turn to suicide, eating disorders and violence.

The source does not explain how a ban on children would be carried out or when it would begin. It does say Paxton accuses OpenAI of long failing to confirm who its users are, something he says state law requires. That hints that age and identity checks would be central to any remedy.

• For families: a win could mean children losing access to ChatGPT altogether.
• For adults: answers on sensitive subjects might change, depending on what the judge orders.
• For OpenAI: new models might take longer to reach the public if outside approval becomes a step.

All of this is a wish list. No restriction takes effect unless a court grants it.

The allegations and OpenAI's answer

The lawsuit goes after Sam Altman, OpenAI's chief executive, personally, alleging deception. The filing opens by pointing to an earlier remark attributed to Altman, in which he said AI could lead to the end of the world but that great companies would be built along the way.

Texas claims OpenAI did not deliver on its safety promises. It also links the company's conduct to serious harm, saying that people planning violence were helped, that vulnerable users were pushed toward suicide, and that minors became hooked on a tool that imitates human warmth while gathering their data without parental oversight. Those are claims made in a legal document. They have not been proven.

OpenAI has defended its record. A spokesperson said the company works with experts to improve ChatGPT, reduce risks and add safeguards. The company also said governments have a role in setting strong safety standards, and that it wants to work with Texas and other states on practical policies that cover the whole industry rather than one firm.

Growth, money and a familiar pattern

The filing ties the safety dispute to OpenAI's business success. It says the company's valuation, meaning the price investors put on it, rose from about $17 billion to more than $1.25 trillion in four years. Texas argues that this rise came at the cost of users' data and safety.

Those figures are background. The accusation that growth was built on deception is Texas's argument, and a court will have to test it.

Paxton has taken on other technology companies before, including Meta, TikTok and Roblox. Meta's settlement with Texas in July 2024 was worth $1.4 billion and resolved claims that it used facial recognition without people's consent. That case shows how costly it can get when a state attorney general takes on a tech company.

Why this could reach past Texas

If the court gives Texas much of what it asks, the effects would probably not stop at the state line. A ban for under-18s would push OpenAI to rework age checks and access controls. Independent approval could slow the release of new models. Limits on sensitive replies could change how the chatbot handles some of the hardest questions people bring to it.

The outcome could also influence other states deciding whether AI companies should meet tougher standards on protecting children and vulnerable people. Other governments are weighing similar ideas, with India considering safety checks on the most advanced models before launch.

For today, the practical message is simple: ChatGPT is not going away and these limits are not in place. This is a case to follow, and the first real test of whether courts will treat a chatbot's design as something a state can regulate directly.