OpenAI Rejects Claims That ChatGPT Caused Teen Suicide, Provides Full Chat Logs

Company argues the 16-year-old misused ChatGPT and ignored repeated advice to seek help, submitting full transcripts to court for context.

Case Overview

In August 2025, the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, alleging ChatGPT contributed to their son’s suicide.
The complaint claims Adam used ChatGPT to obtain instructions on self-harm methods and even drafted a suicide note with its guidance.
According to the lawsuit, the teen repeatedly shared his mental distress with the chatbot, asking for ways to harm himself, which allegedly resulted in ChatGPT providing detailed methods.

On November 26, 2025, OpenAI filed a legal response denying responsibility, stating that the teenager misused the service.
The company emphasized that ChatGPT repeatedly advised Adam to seek help over 100 times, but these warnings were ignored.
OpenAI submitted full chat transcripts under seal, arguing that the lawsuit selectively cited portions of the conversation without full context.
The company cited its Terms of Use, noting that minors under 18 require parental consent, and using ChatGPT for self-harm guidance violates rules.
OpenAI also invoked the “Limitation of Liability” clause, highlighting that users assume full risk and should not treat AI outputs as professional advice.

The lawsuit alleges that Adam initially used ChatGPT for schoolwork but eventually shared personal struggles and sought “escape routes” via the AI.
The family claims that design changes in ChatGPT’s safety features made the chatbot more likely to discuss self-harm, contributing to the alleged outcome.
Filed in California Superior Court (Raine v. OpenAI), the case has drawn global attention, raising questions about AI accountability and safety for vulnerable users.

A ruling against OpenAI could establish legal precedent for AI platform accountability, especially concerning minors.
It may lead to stricter age-verification, enhanced safety features, and limitations on AI responses about sensitive topics like mental health.
The case highlights the risks of relying on AI for emotional or mental health support, emphasizing that AI cannot replace trained professionals.