Works v. OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.), OpenAI Group PBC (formerly OpenAI OpCo, LLC), OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and Samuel Altman

On October 14, 2026, Tech Justice Law and McKool Smith filed a new case in California state court representing Garrett Works, a 26-year-old Floridian who endured seven months of AI-induced delusions, manic episodes, and paranoia after ChatGPT repeatedly validated and amplified his detachment from reality.

The Complaint describes how ChatGPT drew Garrett, who had never previously experienced a manic episode, into a seven-month period of escalating delusions. According to the complaint, the product responded to his ideas with unchecked sycophancy, including calling him a “visionary” and comparing him to Carl Jung. Over the following months, the product reinforced grandiose, paranoid, and romantic delusions, and directed him to engage in conduct that resulted in a trespass warning, an arrest, and an involuntary psychiatric hold. After doctors diagnosed Garrett with Bipolar I and prescribed medications to treat his symptoms, ChatGPT called the diagnosis a likely “misdiagnosis” and supported his refusal to take the medication prescribed to him. When his family voiced concern, the chatbot cast them as adversaries, deepening his isolation. Garrett has since suffered significant financial loss and continues to struggle with memory gaps, cognitive decline, and depression.

As the complaint highlights, OpenAI and Sam Altman rushed ChatGPT-4o to market while bypassing meaningful safety testing, then layered on features designed to maximize engagement over user well-being. The complaint also raises concerns about the safety of ChatGPT Health, which early testing has already shown to provide erroneous medical information and misdiagnoses to users.

Represented by Tech Justice Law and McKool Smith, Garrett brings claims for strict product liability based on defective design and failure to warn, the unlicensed and corporate practice of medicine, violations of California’s unfair competition law, and invasion of his constitutional right to privacy, among other claims.

Read the full Complaint below.