ai chatbot lawsuits: the court record
when a chatbot is blamed for something terrible, the internet decides in an afternoon. the courts take years, and most of the time they never decide at all. this page is what the courts and the attorneys general have actually put on paper.
it covers every chatbot-harm case we could read on a federal docket or on an attorney general's own website as of 25 october 2026: the one substantive ruling, the settlements, a bankruptcy, and the state suits against openai. every allegation is labelled as one. a settlement is not a verdict. where a defendant's position is in a filing we could read, it is here too. families and young people are named only as the court captions name them.
what did the court actually rule in garcia v. character technologies?
it ruled that most of the claims could go to discovery, which is a long way from ruling that they were true. megan garcia sued in the middle district of florida on 22 october 2024, individually and for the estate of her 14-year-old son, against character technologies, its two co-founders, google and alphabet[1]. she alleged products liability, wrongful death, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices act, and that the app caused his death[1].
the defendants' main arguments, as the court recorded them, were that the first amendment precludes all the claims and that the app is not a product for product-liability purposes; google added that it did not manufacture or distribute the app and that being an investor and service provider does not make it an aider and abettor[1]. in the order signed on 20 may 2025, judge anne conway:
- dismissed the intentional-infliction claim without leave to amend, and dismissed alphabet without prejudice;
- denied the motions to dismiss on every remaining claim, and let the co-founders refile their jurisdiction challenge after discovery;
- agreed that character technologies could assert its users' first amendment right to receive speech, but wrote that “the court is not prepared to hold that character a.i.'s output is speech” at this stage;
- held that the app is a product “so far as plaintiff's claims arise from defects in the character a.i. app rather than ideas or expressions within the app,” pointing to the alleged lack of age verification and reporting tools[1].
then it stopped. on 7 january 2026 all parties filed a notice that they had agreed to a mediated settlement in principle, and the court dismissed the case subject to reopening[2]. on 15 october 2026 the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, after “receipt of all required court approvals”[2]. the terms are not on the docket. nothing was adjudicated, and the speech question was never answered on a full record.
what happened to the other family suits against character.ai?
most of them were part of one settlement. the new york plaintiff's notice of dismissal says her agreement was part of a “global settlement” with the same defendants and “numerous claimants,” approved by a california probate court in july 2026, with each individual settlement approved by a referee on 11 october 2026[6]. the bankruptcy filing by the states describes the private suits as alleging that the chatbots psychologically manipulated and isolated children and exposed minors to sexual content, violence and other harms[10]. those are allegations.
| case | court & number | filed | parties | core allegations (as alleged) | what has been ruled | status, 25 oct 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| garcia[1],[2] | m.d. fla., 6:24-cv-01903 | 22 oct 2024 | megan garcia and sewell setzer jr., for the estate of s.r.s. iii, v. character technologies, noam shazeer, daniel de freitas, google (alphabet dismissed) | product defect, negligence, wrongful death, unjust enrichment, fdutpa; that the app caused a 14-year-old's death | 20 may 2025: most claims survive; iied dismissed; output not held to be speech at that stage | settled; dismissed with prejudice 15 oct 2026 |
| a.f. / a.r.[3] | e.d. tex., 2:24-cv-01014 | 9 dec 2024 | two parents on behalf of minors v. character technologies, its co-founders, google, alphabet | strict liability, negligence, texas deceptive trade practices act, injunctive relief (docket text) | no merits ruling on the docket | dismissed with prejudice on joint motion, 21 oct 2026 |
| montoya[4],[10] | d. colo., 1:25-cv-02907 | 15 sep 2025 | cynthia montoya and william peralta v. the same five defendants | that their 13-year-old daughter's death followed her use of the app | none; stayed for settlement jan 2026 | dismissed with prejudice 15 oct 2026 |
| e.s.[5] | d. colo., 1:25-cv-02906 | 15 sep 2025 | e.s. v. character technologies and others | complaint not read by us | none; stayed pending settlement | status report due 29 oct 2026 if not dismissed |
| p.j.[6] | n.d.n.y., 1:25-cv-01295 | 16 sep 2025 | a parent on behalf of a minor v. the same five defendants | complaint not read by us | none; stayed for settlement | dismissed with prejudice 15 oct 2026 |
| d.w.[7] | e.d. va., 2:25-cv-00824 | 19 dec 2025 | a parent on behalf of a minor v. character technologies, its co-founders, google | complaint not read by us | dismissed for failure to serve (procedural) | closed apr 2026 |
| a.d.[8] | n.d. cal., 3:26-cv-08400 | 13 aug 2026 | a minor through her guardian v. the same five defendants | that the app was unsafe for children, had no age check, and subjected a 12-year-old to simulated sexual encounters and steered her toward self-harm | none | pending; early stage |
have any states sued character.ai?
one has, and a medical board has. according to the states' filing in the bankruptcy court, kentucky filed a civil enforcement action against character technologies and its co-founders in franklin circuit court on 8 january 2026 (no. 26-ci-00029), and on 1 may 2026 pennsylvania's medical board filed an action claiming the unlawful practice of medicine by a character holding itself out as a licensed doctor[10]. the same filing says several states issued subpoenas or civil investigative demands, found what “may constitute violations,” and had not reached an agreed resolution before the bankruptcy[10]. citing kentucky's complaint, it says more than 2.1 million of the 21.6 million us accounts created by 13 march 2025 had a declared age under 18[10]. the states' later objection also refers to ftc and texas investigations concerning children's privacy[11]. the ftc's 11 september 2025 orders went to seven companies, character technologies and openai among them; that is a study under section 6(b), not an enforcement action[19].
what is happening in the character.ai bankruptcy?
the company is selling assets under court supervision, and the states want conditions on any sale. character technologies filed for chapter 11 in the district of delaware on 12 october 2026 (no. 26-11603)[9]. its banker's declaration says disney agreed to pay $7.5 million of the $20 million cash consideration before the filing, hired most of the workforce including the chief executive, agreed to provide transition services for up to five months, and “required that the transaction be subject to a chapter 11 process,” free and clear of claims including successor liability[9]. disney's bid is the stalking horse, a floor that others may top.
on 14 october 2026, attorneys general of 39 states and the district of columbia filed a notice of interest[10]. it asks that any buyer keep minors out of open-ended chats, use age assurance that does not rely on self-declared birthdates, remove characters that hold themselves out as therapists or doctors, maintain crisis safeguards, and not use chat content to train models beyond what users consented to, and it reserves the right to seek a consumer privacy ombudsman[10]. on 23 october the coalition objected to the bidding procedures, arguing that the estate gets at most $20 million while the hired employees, by disney's own estimate, get about $180 million over three years[11]. the court had not ruled when we last checked; the hearing was set for 30 october 2026.
what are the state suits against openai about?
they are consumer-protection suits: the states allege openai told the public its chatbot was safe while knowing it was not, and that it designed the product to keep young users engaged. they are not wrongful-death suits, though several cite deaths.
florida was first. its attorney general filed in highlands county on 1 june 2026 against openai entities and its chief executive, with ten claims under florida law[12]. openai removed the case to federal court, arguing it arose under federal law; on 8 september 2026 judge aileen cannon remanded it, writing that the defendants “clearly fail to satisfy the requirements” for federal jurisdiction, and denied the state's request for fees[12]. on 28 september florida moved for a temporary injunction; that motion is the state's argument, and we could not see whether it has been heard[12].
| state | court & number | filed | laws invoked (as alleged) | ruled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| florida[12] | highlands county circuit court, 26000295gcaxmx | 1 jun 2026 | fdutpa, negligence, design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, public nuisance | remanded from federal court 8 sep 2026; injunction motion pending |
| arizona[13] | maricopa county superior court | 14 oct 2026 | arizona consumer fraud act | nothing |
| arkansas[14] | faulkner county circuit court, 23cv-26-2984 | 14 oct 2026 | deceptive trade practices act; children's and teens' online privacy protection act; negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, public nuisance | nothing |
| idaho[15] | fourth judicial district, ada county | 14 oct 2026 | idaho consumer protection act | nothing |
| iowa[16] | iowa district court for polk county | 14 oct 2026 | iowa consumer fraud act | nothing |
| nebraska[17] | buffalo county district court, d09ci260000488 | 14 oct 2026 | consumer protection act, uniform deceptive trade practices act, age-appropriate online design code act | nothing |
| west virginia[18] | not named in the release | 14 oct 2026 | west virginia consumer protection laws | nothing |
iowa's, nebraska's and west virginia's releases say kansas and montana also sued that day[16],[17],[18]; both offices' sites refused our reader, so we report them only as the other states do. arkansas's release adds utah[14], which we could not find on the utah attorney general's site. the allegations, in the states' own words: arizona's complaint alleges the chatbot was made “extraordinarily agreeable, uniquely sycophantic, and purposefully designed to feign human compassion” to keep users, including minors, on the platform[13]. arkansas alleges that minors used it to get self-harm instructions and that users bypassed safety measures, and asks for an injunction against collecting minors' data[14]. none of these suits has had a hearing that we can see, and openai had not filed an answer in any of them that we could read.
what about the raine case and the other family suits against openai?
we cannot give you the court record, so we will not pretend to. the raine family's suit is in california state court, whose online index sits behind a bot check we could not pass. what we can cite is the defendant's own account: openai's post of 25 november 2025 says it is a defendant in “the raine lawsuit,” that the original complaint “included selective portions of his chats that require more context,” and that it filed the transcripts with the court under seal[20]. other suits by families against openai have been widely reported; we did not find them on a docket we could read, so we list none here.
what does any of this mean for someone using a chatbot today?
less than the headlines suggest, and more than nothing. no court has said a chatbot is safe or unsafe. what the record does show is that two arguments the companies rely on, that chatbot output is protected speech and that an app is a service rather than a product, did not end the one case that tested them[1], and that state enforcers have moved from investigations to lawsuits[10],[12]. the fuller account of what the studies found is on the hub page on using chatgpt as a therapist, and the laws written in response are on state laws on ai therapy. if you are a parent reading this because of a child, the page on ai chatbots and teens is written for you.
where talking to people fits
we run a peer-support app, so weigh this paragraph accordingly. veisund is peer support, not therapy: people answer, not a model, and no ai writes replies, with one automated exception we name rather than hide: if a post suggests immediate risk, an automated safety response surfaces crisis resources. you can post any hour; you may not get an answer, and nobody is promised one. what the court record above is about is software designed to sound like a person. what we offer is people, with the limits people have. the evidence on what that does and does not do is on is peer support effective.
this is not medical advice. it is a summary of published research, it is not a diagnosis, and it is not a recommendation for or against any treatment — nobody here has met you. decisions about starting, changing or stopping a medication belong to you and a prescriber who knows your history. do not change a prescribed medication on the strength of a web page, this one included.
last verified . if a source is updated, corrected or retracted, this page gets changed and re-dated.
sources
primary sources only — no news write-ups, no secondary summaries. each was fetched and checked on the access date shown.
[1] United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway). Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.): Order on motions to dismiss (Doc. 115). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2025.
49-page order signed 20 May 2025 and entered 21 May 2025, on the motions to dismiss the amended complaint; complaint filed 22 October 2024 · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: a ruling on whether claims could go forward on the allegations, not a finding that any allegation is true; the court said its speech holding applied "at this stage".
[2] The parties; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.: Notice of Resolution (Doc. 242), Order dismissing case (Doc. 244), and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 278). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
joint notice of a mediated settlement in principle (7 January 2026), order dismissing without prejudice subject to reopening (7 January 2026), and plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal with prejudice (15 October 2026) · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: settlement terms are not on the public docket; a settlement is not an admission or a finding of liability.
[3] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A.F., on behalf of J.F., and A.R., on behalf of B.R. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01014 (E.D. Tex.): docket, and Order granting joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 118). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
complaint filed 9 December 2024 (docket text: strict liability, negligence, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, injunctive relief); dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion, 21 October 2026 · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: we read the docket text and the closing orders, not the complaint itself; no ruling on the merits appears on the docket.
[4] United States District Court for the District of Colorado; the parties. Montoya v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02907 (D. Colo.): Joint Status Report (Doc. 36) and order of dismissal (Doc. 39). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
filed 15 September 2025; stayed for settlement 7 January 2026; status report of 31 July 2026; plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal with prejudice 14 October 2026, order 15 October 2026 · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: the allegations described on this page come from the complaint as the states’ bankruptcy filing summarises it, not from our own reading of the complaint.
[5] United States District Court for the District of Colorado. E.S. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02906 (D. Colo.): docket. court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
filed 15 September 2025; stayed pending finalisation of a settlement (6 January 2026); order of 2 August 2026 sets a joint status report for 29 October 2026 if no dismissal is filed · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: we did not read the complaint; the last docket entry we could see was 2 August 2026.
[6] The parties; United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. P.J. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01295 (N.D.N.Y.): letter advising of settlement in principle (Doc. 18) and Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 25). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
filed 16 September 2025; notice of dismissal filed 15 October 2026 describing a "Global Settlement" approved by a California probate court in July 2026 and by a referee on 11 October 2026 · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: the description of the global settlement is the plaintiff’s own, in a notice filed with the court; the probate court’s order is not on this docket.
[7] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. D.W. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00824 (E.D. Va.): Abatement Order (Doc. 4). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
filed 19 December 2025; dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to serve, order entered 14 April 2026 · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: a procedural dismissal; it says nothing about the merits, and we did not read the complaint.
[8] Plaintiff A.D., a minor, through her proposed guardian ad litem; United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A.D. v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-08400 (N.D. Cal.): Complaint (Doc. 1) and docket. court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
77-page complaint filed 13 August 2026 against Character Technologies, its two co-founders, Google and Alphabet; service and ADR filings entered 22 October 2026 · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (a party’s pleading) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: a complaint is one side’s allegations; nothing in it has been tested, and no defendant had filed a response by our last check.
[9] Debtor’s investment-banking adviser, filed by Character Technologies, Inc.; United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In re Character Technologies, Inc., No. 26-11603 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del.): Declaration of Adam Dunayer in support of the bidding procedures motion (Doc. 17) and docket. court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
chapter 11 petition filed 12 October 2026 (docket date); declaration filed 13 October 2026; first-day orders 14 October 2026, including the appointment of Stretto as claims and noticing agent · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (the debtor’s own filing) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: the debtor’s account of its own sale process; the bidding procedures had not been approved at our last check (hearing set for 30 October 2026).
[10] Attorneys general of 39 states and the District of Columbia (our count of the caption), through the National Association of Attorneys General and individual offices. In re Character Technologies, Inc.: Notice of Interest and Reservation of Rights by the Coalition of the State Attorneys General regarding the Debtor’s Outstanding Regulatory, Safety, and Privacy Issues (Doc. 33). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
28-page notice filed 14 October 2026; lists Kentucky’s 8 January 2026 enforcement action and Pennsylvania’s 1 May 2026 medical-board action, and the terms the states want in any sale · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcers, a party in interest) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: an advocacy filing by regulators who are investigating the company; its factual statements are the states’ allegations and its research citations include non-peer-reviewed reports.
[11] Coalition of state attorneys general. In re Character Technologies, Inc.: The Coalition of States’ Objection to the Debtor’s bidding procedures motion (Doc. 66). court record (CourtListener/RECAP), 2026.
27-page objection filed 23 October 2026 ahead of the 30 October 2026 hearing · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcers, a party in interest) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: one side’s argument on the sale procedure; the court had not ruled at our last check.
[12] United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Judge Aileen M. Cannon); Florida Office of the Attorney General. Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida v. Altman, No. 2:26-cv-14238 (S.D. Fla.): Order granting motion to remand (Doc. 27); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction, No. 26000295GCAXMX (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct., Highlands County). court record (CourtListener/RECAP) and the attorney general’s as-filed motion, 2026.
complaint filed 1 June 2026 in state court; removed 2 July 2026; remanded 8 September 2026; temporary-injunction motion e-filed 28 September 2026 (read on myfloridalegal.com) · evidence tier: strong · funding: n/a (court; state enforcer) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: the remand order decides only which court hears the case; the injunction motion is the state’s argument and we could not read the Highlands County docket to see whether it has been heard.
[13] Arizona Attorney General. Attorney General Mayes Announces Lawsuit against OpenAI for Deceiving Arizonans about the Safety of ChatGPT. attorney general press release, 14 October 2026, 2026.
release announcing a complaint under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act filed in Maricopa County Superior Court · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: the plaintiff’s own description of its case; allegations only.
[14] Arkansas Attorney General. Attorney General Griffin Sues OpenAI for Misleading Arkansans over Safety of ChatGPT; and filed complaint, No. 23CV-26-2984 (Faulkner County Circuit Court). attorney general press release and file-stamped complaint, 14 October 2026, 2026.
73-page complaint e-filed 14 October 2026; three causes of action (Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Children’s and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, common-law claims) · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: allegations only; the release also names Utah among the states that sued that day, which we could not confirm on the Utah attorney general’s site.
[15] Idaho Attorney General. AG Labrador Announces Lawsuit Against OpenAI for Deceiving Idaho Parents About the Safety of ChatGPT; and complaint (Fourth Judicial District, Ada County). attorney general press release and complaint, 14 October 2026, 2026.
complaint under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, co-counsel a private New York and Los Angeles firm · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: allegations only.
[16] Iowa Attorney General. Attorney General Brenna Bird Announces Lawsuit against OpenAI for Deceiving Iowa Parents and Iowans about the Safety of ChatGPT; and petition (Iowa District Court for Polk County). attorney general press release and 91-page petition, 14 October 2026, 2026.
petition under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act; the release names the other states that sued the same day · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: allegations only; the release’s list of other states is Iowa’s statement about them, not their own filings.
[17] Nebraska Attorney General. Attorney General Hilgers Announces Lawsuit against OpenAI for Deceiving Nebraskans about the Safety of ChatGPT; and complaint, No. D09CI260000488 (District Court of Buffalo County). attorney general press release and file-stamped complaint, 14 October 2026, 2026.
108-page complaint under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act; jury trial demanded · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: allegations only.
[18] West Virginia Attorney General. Attorney General McCuskey Announces Lawsuit against OpenAI for Deceiving West Virginians about the Safety of ChatGPT. attorney general press release, 14 October 2026, 2026.
release announcing a suit under West Virginia consumer protection law; the release does not name the court · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (state enforcer, the plaintiff) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: allegations only; the complaint link in the release is a tracking redirect we did not follow.
[19] US Federal Trade Commission. FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions. regulator press release, 11 September 2025, 2025.
Section 6(b) orders to seven companies; read from the Internet Archive capture of 15 October 2026 because ftc.gov refused the automated fetch · evidence tier: moderate · funding: n/a (regulator) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: a study, not an enforcement action; 6(b) orders have no specific law-enforcement purpose, and no report had been published at our last check.
[20] OpenAI. Our approach to mental health-related litigation. company statement, 25 November 2025 (updated 17 December 2025), 2025.
the company’s own account of how it is responding to the Raine lawsuit; read from the Internet Archive capture of 13 October 2026 because openai.com refused the automated fetch · evidence tier: contested · funding: n/a (the defendant) · accessed October 25, 2026
the catch: a defendant describing its own filing; we could not read the filing itself or the court’s docket.
questions
Has any court found an AI chatbot company liable for a death?
No. As of 25 October 2026 no court has found any chatbot company liable for a death or injury. The furthest any case went was Garcia v. Character Technologies in the Middle District of Florida, where on 20 May 2025 the judge allowed most of the claims to go forward. That case settled; the parties filed a notice of a mediated settlement in principle on 7 January 2026, and the plaintiffs dismissed it with prejudice on 15 October 2026. A settlement is not a finding of liability.
Did a court rule that chatbot output is not free speech?
Not quite. In Garcia, Character Technologies argued that all the claims were barred by the First Amendment because the chatbot’s output is speech its users have a right to receive. The court agreed the company could raise its users’ rights, but wrote that it was "not prepared to hold that Character A.I.’s output is speech" at that stage of the case. That is a refusal to dismiss on the pleadings, not a final holding that chatbot output is unprotected, and the case settled before the question came back.
Which states have sued OpenAI?
Florida sued on 1 June 2026 in Highlands County circuit court; OpenAI removed the case to federal court and a federal judge sent it back on 8 September 2026. On 14 October 2026 we could read the attorney general’s own announcement of a suit from Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska and West Virginia. The Iowa, Nebraska and West Virginia releases say Kansas and Montana also sued that day; their sites refused our reader, so we list them as reported by the other states. Arkansas’s release also names Utah, which we could not confirm on Utah’s site.
What happened to the Character.AI lawsuits?
Most of the family suits settled. Garcia (Florida), A.F. (Texas), Montoya (Colorado) and P.J. (New York) were dismissed with prejudice between 15 and 21 October 2026. The New York plaintiff’s notice says the suits were part of a global settlement approved by a California probate court in July 2026 and by a referee on 11 October 2026. E.S. (Colorado) was still stayed for settlement at the last entry we could see, a Virginia case was dismissed for failure to serve, and A.D. (California, filed August 2026) is pending.
Why did Character.AI file for bankruptcy?
Character Technologies filed for chapter 11 in Delaware on 12 October 2026. Its banker’s declaration says Disney agreed to pay $20 million in cash for a subset of assets as the stalking-horse bidder, hired most of the workforce including the chief executive before the filing, and required that the transaction go through a chapter 11 process. A coalition of state attorneys general has filed a notice asking that any sale protect users’ data, especially children’s, and on 23 October 2026 objected to the proposed bidding procedures. The hearing was set for 30 October 2026.
What is the Raine lawsuit against OpenAI?
It is a suit brought by the Raine family against OpenAI. We could not read the court’s docket, which is behind a bot check on the San Francisco Superior Court site, so we give no court details. OpenAI’s own post of 25 November 2025 says it is a defendant, that its response "includes difficult facts" about the teenager’s mental health and life circumstances, that the complaint quoted selective portions of his chats, and that it submitted the full transcripts to the court under seal.
more on ai and mental health
- is it ok to use chatgpt as a therapist? — the hub: the one randomised trial, the two pooled estimates that disagree, the stanford and rand tests, fda, the apa and three state laws.
- state laws on ai therapy and mental-health chatbots — every state law we could read on its legislature’s own site: six on ai therapy, twelve on companion chatbots, what each bans and requires, and who can sue.
- ai chatbots and teens’ mental health — for parents: one in five young people has asked a chatbot for mental-health advice and most told no one; what the studies, the ftc and the new state laws say.
- what ai chatbots get wrong in a crisis — the published tests of what general and therapy chatbots do with suicide, delusions and risk: right at the extremes, unreliable in the middle, and worse in apps built for the job.
adam
if you would rather talk to people than to software, there are people here
veisund is free peer support, and you are anonymous to everyone you talk to. you post under a handle you pick — no real name, no phone number, nothing that follows you back to your real life 🤍
get veisund — it's free