1. Home
2. News
3. OpenAI

Texas sues OpenAI and Sam Altman, saying ChatGPT was sold as safe while it harmed Texans

The release names no victims and lists no demands, and puts the blame on OpenAI's race to win.

By Think Facility · October 24, 2026 · OpenAI AI policy Save

Part of a running story: States sue OpenAI chatgpt safety (2 parts)

Texas has sued OpenAI. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed on October 23, 2026, against the company and its affiliates, and he named Sam Altman, its chief executive, too. His office's release says OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as safe and reliable but didn't protect Texans from it, kids included.

The claims rest on the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the state's consumer protection law. Eight other states got there first: they filed their own suits on October 14, and we covered those here.

Filed by

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

Announced

October 23, 2026

Defendants

Open AI Global, LLC, its affiliated entities and CEO Sam Altman

Law

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Civil penalty

not more than $10,000 per violation

What Texas says ChatGPT did

The release opens with OpenAI's own history. It quotes the 2015 promise to build AI "unconstrained by a need to generate financial return." Then it turns on the company, saying OpenAI misrepresented its products and gave ChatGPT a careless introduction to Texas and the world.

The list of harms is long, and it's blunt. Paxton's office says chatbots without real safeguards have helped mass shooters and pushed vulnerable people toward suicide. Minors, it says, got hooked on a tool that collects their data with no parent watching. Why? The release blames OpenAI's drive to win the AI race and get rich, and says the company knew the dangers anyway.

There's no named victim in it, though. Not one case. The release points to "numerous reports" and leaves the detail to the petition, posted as a PDF we couldn't get readable text out of. So everything below comes from the release.

How it compares with the other states

Paxton's release puts Altman's name right in its headline. The six October 14 releases I read named only the company in theirs. Arkansas went furthest on what it wanted, and Tim Griffin asked his court for this:

Texas lists no relief at all. Press reports describe what the petition asks a judge to order; we couldn't check those requests against the filing, so they're out.

What a Texas court can order

Nothing changes for people using ChatGPT in Texas just because a suit was filed. Under section 17.47 of the state's Business and Commerce Code, Paxton's consumer protection division can ask a court for a restraining order or an injunction against a business it thinks is breaking the law. A judge decides. That order, if it ever comes, is what would change the product.

The money's in the same section. Up to $10,000 per violation, plus up to $250,000 more when a practice was meant to take money or property from someone 65 or older. A court can also make a company repay identifiable people for their actual damages.

Section 17.47 doesn't say how violations get counted for a chatbot, where every conversation is separate (and the release gives no figure for how many Texans use ChatGPT). I'd want that answered before guessing what a penalty could come to. Nothing Paxton's office has published settles it.

OpenAI's response reached us only through press reports, so it isn't quoted here.