OpenAI sued over collecting and using children's data to train ChatGPT

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 15, 2026, 15:50 UTC

On October 13, 2026, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against OpenAI alleging the company collected data from minors without parental consent and used it to train its ChatGPT models. The plaintiffs are seeking an unusual form of relief: a share of OpenAI's equity, rather than straightforward monetary damages, a detail reported by the Daily Journal. Separately, attorneys general in eight US states filed their own lawsuits against OpenAI over ChatGPT's effects on children, with those cases seeking financial penalties and court-ordered safeguards, according to Scripps News. OpenAI has not publicly conceded any of the claims.

The cases arrive at a moment when regulators and the public are paying close attention to how AI companies source the data that trains their systems. Child privacy law in the United States, particularly the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, places strict requirements on companies that collect data from users under thirteen, including mandatory parental consent. If the allegations are proven, the legal exposure for OpenAI could be significant, both financially and reputationally. The equity demand from the class action plaintiffs is especially notable because it frames the harm not just as a violation requiring compensation but as unjust enrichment that entitles the affected children to a stake in the company built partly on their data.

The Anti-AI camp has pointed to the eight state attorneys general lawsuits as evidence that official institutions are recognizing the dangers AI companies pose to vulnerable populations. Scripps News highlighted the dual track of financial penalties and mandatory safeguards being sought by those states. The Pro-AI camp has not yet published reactions to this story; typically, voices in that camp would argue that data collection practices are an industry-wide issue, that existing moderation and age-verification tools mitigate harm, and that litigation is a disproportionate response to problems better addressed through clearer regulation. The Middle Ground camp has also not yet weighed in; observers in that space would normally call for enforceable consent frameworks while cautioning against remedies that could stifle AI development broadly.

The arguments in both the class action and the state cases will likely turn on whether OpenAI knowingly collected data from minors and whether its consent mechanisms met legal standards. Court rulings on the equity remedy demand, any early motions to dismiss, and OpenAI's formal legal responses will be the clearest signals of where these cases are headed.