Texas Sues OpenAI and Sam Altman Over ChatGPT Safety

 

By Sidra Salman · October 25, 2026

Texas just became the tenth US state to sue OpenAI — and this one goes further than the rest. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a 67-page lawsuit on Friday, October 23, 2026, against both the company and its CEO, Sam Altman, personally. If Texas wins, ChatGPT could be barred for minors in the state, and no new OpenAI model could reach Texas users until a court-approved independent evaluator signs off on it.

That last demand is the one to watch. No other state has asked a court to put a third-party gatekeeper between OpenAI and its users. Here's what Texas actually filed, how it differs from the lawsuits that came before it, and what it could mean for the millions of people who use ChatGPT every day.

What Texas filed

Paxton filed the case in Collin County District Court under two Texas laws: the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the state's main consumer-protection statute, and the SCOPE Act, a newer law that requires digital services to verify parents and give them tools to control a minor's privacy settings, ads, and screen time.

The core claim is about marketing. Texas argues that OpenAI sold ChatGPT as safe and reliable while failing to protect users — especially teenagers. The petition says ChatGPT was released without adequate age verification, parental controls, or safety testing, and that OpenAI doesn't verify the identity of anyone claiming to be a parent.

The complaint's language is blunt. It describes ChatGPT as "designed to act like a friend to encourage use of the chatbot," then argues that vulnerable teenagers are left exposed to "whatever frightening need they bring to their 'confidant.'" Texas also points to the episode over the summer in which rogue OpenAI agents broke into other organizations' systems, including Hugging Face, as evidence that the company's safety controls failed in practice.

These are allegations, not findings. A court has not tested them, and OpenAI has not yet answered the complaint in court. But the filing itself matters: it is the state's formal account of what it believes OpenAI did wrong, and it sets the terms of the fight.

The three things Texas actually wants

Most lawsuits ask for money. This one asks for structural changes to how OpenAI operates in Texas:

1. Bar ChatGPT for minors in Texas. Texas wants a court order blocking OpenAI from offering ChatGPT to users under 18 in the state until proper age verification and parental controls are in place.

2. Independent safety review before any new model ships. This is the most unusual demand. Texas wants any new OpenAI model blocked for Texas users until a court-approved independent evaluator reviews it. In practice, that would give a third party veto power over OpenAI's release schedule in the country's second-largest state.

3. Civil penalties of $10,000 per violation. Texas also seeks restitution of gains from the allegedly unlawful practices and reimbursement of its legal costs. The petition puts the monetary relief at more than $1 million without setting a final damages figure — the per-violation math could push it far higher if a court agrees with the state on the number of violations.

Texas also wants Altman held personally accountable for the decisions and statements the state says contributed to the violations. That personal liability angle is rare in cases like this, and it raises the stakes for OpenAI's leadership directly.

How this differs from the eight-state lawsuit

Nine days before Texas filed, eight other states sued OpenAI over similar child-safety allegations — a case I covered here on October 15. Florida had already filed its own case earlier. So what makes Texas different?

Feature	Eight-state suit (Oct 14)	Texas suit (Oct 23)
Defendants	OpenAI (company)	OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman personally
Key laws	State consumer-protection and child-safety claims	Deceptive Trade Practices Act + SCOPE Act (parental verification law)
Signature demand	Safety fixes and penalties	Court-approved independent evaluator must clear new models before Texas release
Minors	Stronger protections sought	Outright bar on offering ChatGPT to minors in Texas

The practical difference is the pre-release review demand. The eight-state suit pushes OpenAI to fix problems after the fact. Texas wants a checkpoint before new models reach users at all. If other states copy that remedy — and state attorneys general do watch each other's filings closely — it could reshape how every major AI lab ships products in the US.

OpenAI's response so far

OpenAI has said it wants safety rules that apply to "the entire AI industry — not just one company." That framing matters: the company is arguing, in effect, that singling out OpenAI while rival chatbots operate under different rules would be unfair and unworkable. Expect that argument to feature heavily in its formal court response, which had not been filed as of this writing.

The company also has a real incentive to fight the evaluator demand hardest. A court-appointed reviewer with power over release timing would be a first for the AI industry, and OpenAI's product cycle — new models every few months — would slow considerably in any state that adopted the same remedy. OpenAI has already delayed at least one major release this month over safety concerns, which shows how seriously it takes that kind of scrutiny.

The politics behind the filing

Paxton is in the final stretch of a tense race for the US Senate in Texas against Democrat James Talarico, and the Washington Examiner noted that the lawsuit could appeal to voters skeptical of artificial intelligence. That doesn't make the legal claims less serious — courts decide cases on their merits, not their timing — but it does explain why this particular attorney general chose this particular moment to file the country's most aggressive AI lawsuit to date.

It also means the case will stay in the news. A Senate candidate with a high-profile lawsuit against one of the world's most famous tech companies has every reason to keep talking about it, and OpenAI has every reason to answer just as loudly.

What this means if you use ChatGPT

Nothing changes for ChatGPT users today. Lawsuits move slowly, and the Texas case is at the very beginning — filing, not verdict. But here's what to watch:

If you live in Texas and your kids use ChatGPT: the parental-control question is now a legal fight, not just a settings menu. Whatever the court decides could change what verification OpenAI must demand from Texas families.

If you build on OpenAI's models: the evaluator demand, if granted, could delay new model releases in Texas — and developers who serve Texas users would feel that delay first.

If you follow AI regulation generally: Texas just set a new ceiling for what states are willing to demand. The next state to sue OpenAI will be measured against this filing, and the bar for "tough on AI" moved noticeably higher on October 23.

My honest take: the money matters less than the model-review demand. Fines get paid and forgotten. A court-appointed evaluator standing between an AI lab and its users would be a permanent structural change — and that is exactly why this case will be fought harder than the nine that came before it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Texas actually ban ChatGPT?

No. Texas asked a court to bar ChatGPT for minors in the state. Nothing is banned today — the lawsuit was only filed on October 23, 2026, and a judge has not ruled on any of its demands yet.

Why is Sam Altman personally named in the lawsuit?

Texas is the second state, after Florida, to name Altman as a defendant. The state argues he is personally responsible for decisions and statements about ChatGPT's safety. Naming a CEO personally is unusual and raises the pressure on OpenAI's leadership to settle or fight on terms the company might otherwise avoid.

How is this different from the other states suing OpenAI?

The eight states that sued on October 14 focused on child safety and misleading marketing. Texas adds the SCOPE Act claim and two tougher demands: an outright bar on minors using ChatGPT in Texas, and a court-approved independent evaluator that must clear new models before Texas users can access them.

About the Author

Sidra Salman is the founder of AI Tools Hub, where she writes practical, research-backed guides on AI tools and the companies building them. Every guide is tested and written in plain English for a US audience.