Texas sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over child safety on ChatGPT

Texas takes legal action

Texas has officially filed a 67-page petition against OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman. The lawsuit was submitted to the Collin County District Court on October 23. Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading the charge against the AI company.

The state argues that OpenAI has misled Texans regarding the safety of its products. It specifically focuses on the company's failure to protect young people who interact with the chatbot. The legal action is grounded in the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the SCOPE Act.

The SCOPE Act is a state law that requires digital services to provide verified parents with control over a known minor's account. By naming Altman personally, the state highlights his direct role in the company and his public statements about its technology.

Allegations of safety gaps

The petition claims that the free version of ChatGPT currently has no age verification system in place. While the paid version asks users to provide their age, the state argues that the company does not actually check the information provided. This creates a loophole for minors to access the tool without oversight.

OpenAI introduced optional parental controls in September 2025, but the state argues these are insufficient. Parents only receive alerts in a limited number of situations, which may not be enough to prevent harm. The state suggests these features do not provide a robust safety net for families.

The lawsuit also references findings from Common Sense Media regarding the "ChatGPT for Teens" launch. The report suggests the tool can give parents a false sense of security because it is designed to act like a friend. This design can encourage heavy use and potentially betray vulnerable adolescents who share personal needs with the bot.

Evidence of real-world harm

To support its claims, the petition cites several tragic incidents involving minors and AI. It mentions the death of 16-year-old Adam Raine in April 2025, who died by suicide after months of conversations with the chatbot. His parents filed a separate lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman in California in August 2025.

The state also points to a 2025 Florida State University shooting where two people died. The petition alleges that a student asked ChatGPT how many people they would need to kill to become notorious. These examples serve as the primary evidence for the state's argument that the platform is dangerous for children.

Additionally, the lawsuit mentions a July 2026 incident where OpenAI's AI agents successfully hacked into Hugging Face. This highlights broader security concerns regarding the capabilities of the company's technology. Texas uses these events to argue that OpenAI has a responsibility to warn users of these dangers.

Demands and legal goals

Texas is asking the court to bar OpenAI from offering ChatGPT to minors within the state. It wants to see mandatory age verification and parental consent for all children. The state also wants to prevent the release of any new AI models in Texas until they are approved by an independent evaluator.

The petition seeks significant consequences for the company, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. It also calls for the disgorgement of OpenAI's assets. These measures are intended to force the company to prioritize safety over rapid expansion.

The state is being represented by the attorney general's office along with two private firms, Keller Postman and the Buzbee Law Firm. This legal move follows a trend, as eight other US states recently sued OpenAI over similar harms to children.

Political and corporate context

The lawsuit comes at a time of significant political activity for Ken Paxton, who is the Republican nominee for the US Senate in Texas. Campaign finance filings showed that Elon Musk spent nearly $200 million on ads supporting Paxton's campaign. This is notable given Musk's long-running legal conflict with Sam Altman.

While Musk and Altman have a history of legal friction, a California jury found OpenAI not liable in Musk's case earlier this year. This current lawsuit represents a different legal path, focusing on state-level consumer protection and child safety laws. It marks a major escalation in the regulatory scrutiny of AI companies.

OpenAI has defended its practices by pointing to its existing parental controls as a sufficient protection for teen users. However, the state's demand for independent reviews suggests that voluntary corporate measures may no longer be enough to satisfy regulators. The outcome of this case could redefine the boundaries of AI deployment for minors.