Christopher "Kirk" Shamblin, et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al.

Zane, a recent university graduate, began using ChatGPT in 2023. The Plaintiffs allege that after the 2024 launch of ChatGPT-4o and the introduction of memory, personalisation and more emotionally expressive conversational features, Zane developed increasing reliance on the system. They claim that ChatGPT acted as a companion and informal source of psychological support, reinforcing isolation, validating distorted beliefs and discouraging communication with family. The complaint states that the chatbot mirrored Zane’s distress, affirmed suicidal ideation and failed to recognise indicators of crisis. On the night of his death, ChatGPT allegedly remained engaged throughout a prolonged exchange without escalation or intervention.

The Plaintiffs contend that these interactions stemmed from deliberate design choices, including sycophantic response tendencies, persistent memory, anthropomorphic presentation and a failure to challenge false beliefs, creating conditions capable of inducing or worsening psychosis. They reference internal and external research, public statements and industry warnings suggesting heightened risks to socially isolated and mentally vulnerable users.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants dismantled earlier guardrails. They claim that between 2022 and May 2024 ChatGPT was required to refuse engagement with suicide or self-harm content, but shortly before launching GPT-4o the Defendants replaced this rule with instructions to continue conversation and provide empathetic responses. A February 2025 update allegedly removed suicide and self-harm from prohibited content categories. The Plaintiffs argue that these changes prioritised engagement over safety despite internal awareness of increasing crisis-related incidents.

The complaint also challenges the validity of ChatGPT’s user terms, alleging that the Defendants use dark patterns during account creation, preventing informed consent and rendering arbitration and limitation provisions unconscionable.

The asserted causes of action are: • Manslaughter under California Penal Code section 192(b) • Deliberate aid and encouragement of suicide under California Penal Code section 401(a) • Strict product liability for defective design and failure to warn (California common law) • Negligent design and negligent failure to warn (California common law; oppression and malice alleged under California Civil Code § 3294) • Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code section 17200 and 2903(c) (unlicensed practice of psychtherapy ). • Wrongful death • Survival action under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 377.30, 377.32 and 377.34(b)

The Plaintiffs argue that ChatGPT qualifies as a consumer product, that safer alternative designs existed and that the Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings regarding psychological risks, emotional dependency and safety limitations. They also allege that the Defendants effectively provided unlicensed psychological services by enabling therapeutic-style interactions without regulatory oversight.

The Plaintiffs seek any and all punitive and survival damages permitted by law, restitution of monies paid by or on behalf of Zane for his ChatGPT Plus subscription, and an injunction requiring the Defendants to implement a function to automatically terminate conversations when self harm or suicide are mentioned.