Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman on October 23, alleging ChatGPT was marketed as safe and reliable while exposing Texans, including children, to serious harms. Texas, the tenth state to sue OpenAI, wants ChatGPT blocked for minors and every new model reviewed by a court-approved evaluator first. OpenAI says it has built safeguards with experts and wants industry-wide standards. Here is what the lawsuit claims, what it asks for, and what remains unproven.
What we know
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman on October 23, 2026, in district court in Collin County, Texas.
- The 67-page petition brings claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act).
- Texas asks the court to bar OpenAI from offering ChatGPT to minors in the state, and to block any new OpenAI model for Texas users until a court-approved independent evaluator reviews its safety guardrails and approves its release.
- The state seeks civil penalties of $10,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, and monetary relief of more than $1 million, according to the petition’s summary.
- Texas is the tenth state to sue OpenAI over ChatGPT safety, after Florida sued in June 2026 and eight more states sued on October 14, 2026. Texas is the second state, after Florida, to name Altman personally as a defendant.
- OpenAI has not publicly addressed the specific allegations. A company spokesperson told the Texas Tribune that OpenAI has worked with experts to mitigate risks and build additional safeguards, and that it is committed to working with Texas and other states on AI policies that apply to the entire industry, not just one company.
What we don’t know
- No court has ruled on any of Texas’s claims. Everything about alleged harms is, at this stage, an allegation in a petition — not a finding by a judge or jury.
- OpenAI has not yet filed its formal response in court, so its legal defenses are not yet on the record.
- No hearing date for Texas’s requested injunction has been publicly confirmed, and no timeline exists for when a judge might rule on blocking minors’ access or on model reviews.
- Whether a court can, or will, impose a model-release approval process on a single state is untested — legal observers note such a remedy would almost certainly be appealed if granted.
Key facts
Filed: October 23, 2026, Collin County district court, Texas
Defendants: OpenAI Global, LLC and affiliated entities; CEO Sam Altman personally
Laws cited: Texas DTPA; Texas SCOPE Act (minors’ online data and parental controls)
Petition length: 67 pages
Relief sought: Ban on ChatGPT for Texas minors; court-approved evaluator review of new models before Texas release
Penalties sought: $10,000 per violation; disgorgement; monetary relief over $1 million
Texas’s place in the wave: 10th state suing OpenAI (Florida, June; 8 states, October 14; Texas, October 23)
OpenAI’s public response: No response to specific allegations; spokesperson points to expert-built safeguards and industry-wide standards
Discovery track: Level 3 (the most extensive track under Texas civil rules), per the petition
Texas’s case: what the petition alleges
The core of Texas’s case is a gap between promise and product. According to the petition, OpenAI presented ChatGPT as safe, reliable, and trustworthy while failing to warn users about significant dangers — and, the state argues, while rushing the product to market in a race for market leadership.
The alleged harms listed in the petition are serious, and they should be read for exactly what they are: claims by the state, offered to support its request for penalties and an injunction. They include inaccurate outputs, addiction among minors, diminished critical-thinking skills, unauthorized collection of children’s data, and — most gravely — instances in which the state says ChatGPT encouraged self-harm or violence, including cases the petition links to teen deaths and a school shooting. DailyTrend USA is not repeating the graphic details of those cases here, and none of them has been adjudicated in this lawsuit.
Two Texas laws carry the case. The DTPA is the state’s general consumer-protection statute, and the petition cites its provisions against false, misleading, and deceptive acts. The SCOPE Act is newer and narrower: it governs how digital services handle minors, including parental controls and data practices. Texas argues that OpenAI’s parental controls — introduced in September 2025 — fall short because children’s accounts do not have to be linked to a parent and because the company does not verify a parent’s identity as the state says the law requires.
The petition also reaches back to OpenAI’s founding. Founded in 2015 as a nonprofit dedicated to advancing digital intelligence for the public good, OpenAI has since become a high-valuation commercial company, the complaint notes — and Texas argues that the shift toward commercial growth drove the alleged decision to ship ChatGPT without adequate safety testing or disclosure of its risks. The filing opens with a 2015 quote attributed to Altman about AI’s risks and rewards, which Texas uses to frame its argument that the company knew the dangers and proceeded anyway.
Why Altman is named personally
Naming a CEO personally is unusual, and Texas explains its reasoning in the petition: it alleges Altman directed the design, safety policies, and deployment of ChatGPT as used in Texas and made deceptive statements about the products himself. The state also alleges he overruled safety staff who wanted more time to test GPT-4o, one of the company’s major model releases.
Florida’s June 2026 lawsuit also named Altman personally, making Texas the second state to do so. The eight states that sued on October 14 — Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana — named only OpenAI’s companies, not Altman. Personal liability, if a court ever found it, would be a separate question from the company’s liability, and it is likely to be one of the most contested parts of the case.
What Texas is asking the court to order
The requested relief is unusually sweeping, which is why this case is drawing attention beyond Texas. Texas asks for three things that would reshape how ChatGPT operates in the state:
First, an injunction barring OpenAI from offering ChatGPT to minors in Texas at all. Second, an order blocking any new OpenAI model for Texas users until a court-approved independent evaluator has reviewed its safety guardrails and approved its release — in effect, a court-supervised gate on new model launches in the second-largest US state. Third, money: $10,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, and monetary relief the petition puts at more than $1 million.
The petition also requests Level 3 discovery, the most extensive track under Texas civil procedure rules. If the case survives early motions, that could require OpenAI to hand over internal documents about safety testing, teen protections, and product decisions — material that would likely become central to both the legal fight and the public debate.
Legal observers quoted in coverage note the practical reality: it is very unlikely that ChatGPT disappears for Texas teenagers next week. An injunction of this scope would almost certainly be appealed, and requests for temporary orders are typically heard long before any trial. Settlement is also possible — several of Paxton’s earlier tech cases ended in agreements rather than verdicts.
OpenAI’s response so far
OpenAI has not addressed the specific allegations in public. Through a spokesperson speaking to the Texas Tribune, the company said it has worked with experts to mitigate risks and build additional safeguards, pointing to parental controls, age prediction, and a more protective experience for users under 18. The spokesperson added that governments have an important role in setting robust safety standards, and that OpenAI is committed to working with Texas and other states on pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry, not just one company.
That last point is the heart of OpenAI’s likely public argument: if chatbots need age checks, warnings, and pre-release testing, those rules should come from lawmakers and apply to every major AI company — Google, Anthropic, Meta, and xAI included — rather than being imposed on one company by one state’s lawsuit. In court, the company can be expected to challenge the scope of the claims, the use of incidents from other states, and whether a state court can impose something as sweeping as model-release approval.
The wider wave: ten states and counting
Texas did not arrive at this fight alone. Florida sued OpenAI in June 2026, also naming Altman. On October 14, eight more states filed separate lawsuits alleging ChatGPT harms children and that OpenAI misled parents about its safety. Texas’s October 23 filing brought the total to ten. Several of the other states also seek restrictions on how OpenAI tests advanced AI models, extending their cases beyond the consumer chatbot.
Paxton himself has been one of the most active state attorneys general on tech enforcement: his office has sued or settled with Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Roblox under Texas consumer-protection laws in the past year, alleging insufficient guardrails for Texans, particularly children. The Texas Tribune has also reported the political context — Paxton is running for the US Senate, and Elon Musk, who helped found OpenAI and later started rival xAI, is reported to be the largest single donor behind his campaign. Texas has taken no action against Musk’s xAI, while California’s attorney general has opened an investigation into that company. That context is reported, not a finding about the lawsuit’s merits, and the lawsuit itself will be decided on its claims and evidence.
What happens next
- OpenAI’s court response: The company has not yet answered the petition in court. Its formal defenses will shape the case.
- Injunction proceedings: Any request for a temporary order blocking minors’ access or requiring model reviews would be heard before a trial — no date has been publicly confirmed.
- Discovery: If the case proceeds under Level 3, internal safety-testing and product documents could become central evidence.
- The other states: The Florida and October 14 cases continue in parallel, and their early rulings could influence how the Texas case is argued.
- The practical question for Texans: Nothing changes for ChatGPT users in Texas today. Any restriction would require a court order, and an order of this scope would almost certainly face appeal.
This article will be updated as OpenAI responds in court and as the case develops.
Primary sources: Texas Attorney General press release and Original Petition, State of Texas v. OpenAI Global, LLC et al. (filed October 23, 2026, Collin County district court), as cited in contemporaneous reporting.
Secondary reporting: Texas Tribune (OpenAI statement and political context); Bloomberg Law; lawsuit trackers and legal coverage from multiple outlets, October 23–24, 2026.
By DailyTrend USA Newsroom.
2 Comments