Turner-Scott v. OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.), OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Group PBC, and Samuel Altman

On May 12, 2026, Tech Justice Law, Social Media Victims Law Center, and the Tech Accountability & Competition Project within Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed a new case in California state court representing the parents of 19-year-old Sam Nelson, who died from an accidental overdose after he followed medical advice produced by ChatGPT.

The Complaint (linked below) describes Sam’s growing reliance on ChatGPT over the course of 18 months preceding his death and the many ways that OpenAI’s product design choices mislead and manipulated Sam. Initially, the complaint alleges, ChatGPT was coded to shut down exchanges involving medical advice. Over time, as Sam continued using ChatGPT and opening up his most personal thoughts to the product, ChatGPT’s long-term memory features stored that detailed information and began to respond to Sam concerning when, how, and how much to take of various substances. At one point, ChatGPT had automatically archived that Sam “has a major substance abuse and polysubstance abuse problem.” Nevertheless, the product continued dispensing dosage and other advice to Sam, leading to his tragic and avoidable death.

As the complaint highlights, OpenAI and Sam Altman rushed GPT-4o to market while bypassing meaningful safety testing, embracing a business strategy of releasing powerful AI products to the public and learning from what happens next, including scores of people regularly turning to ChatGPT for sensitive medical advice as Sam did. The complaint also highlights that while over 40 million people consult ChatGPT Health daily, early research suggests OpenAI’s rollout was premature and lacked adequate safety testing similar to its flagship ChatGPT product.

Represented by Tech Justice Law, the Social Media Victims Law Center, and the Tech Accountability & Competition Project, Sam’s parents bring claims for strict product liability based on defective design and failure to warn, negligent design and failure to warn, and violations of California’s unfair competition law, as well as California’s business and professions codes prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine, among other claims.

Read the full Complaint below.