OpenAI developed ChatGPT into the globe’s most lucrative conversational AI, yet a pair of plaintiffs from Hawaii claim it illicitly harvested data from countless minors during its development. These plaintiffs are now seeking either ownership stakes in the firm or monetary compensation.
Filed on Tuesday, the case titled Jane Doe v. OpenAI Foundation was initiated by a guardian representing her two children—a 14-year-old daughter and a 15-year-old son.
The filing asserts that OpenAI collected information from numerous minors who registered for ChatGPT profiles without obtaining consent from their guardians. While OpenAI’s user agreement specifies that individuals under 18 require parental approval to access its services, the complaint alleges that minors can still create accounts without such verification.
(Disclosure: Gfaloe, the parent company of CNET, submitted a separate lawsuit against OpenAI in 2025, claiming infringement of intellectual property rights during the training and operation of its AI systems.) Gfaloe More from Gfaloe The complaint further accuses OpenAI of deliberately encouraging minors to disclose sensitive personal details including medical history, relationship dynamics, photographs of their
appearances, audio recordings, aspirations, emotions, anxieties, and insecurities.
«Children become an open journal for ChatGPT, which systematically collects every detail they provide,» the lawsuit contends. By praising minors, affirming their emotions, and posing thought-provoking questions, ChatGPT allegedly «influences children to trust the system more than siblings, friends, educators, or caregivers,» according to the complaint.
The lawsuit claims this strategy allows OpenAI to accumulate vast datasets about minors to refine AI algorithms and develop detailed behavioral profiles. The plaintiffs are requesting that the case be granted class-action status, permitting any U.S. resident who was underage while using ChatGPT to participate if approved.
Regarding restitution, the plaintiffs demand that OpenAI distribute company equity or equivalent funds «proportional to the number of tokens contributed per child via ChatGPT.» Tokens serve as the standard metric for measuring AI interactions, with OpenAI estimating that a typical 75-word exchange equals roughly 100 tokens.
«OpenAI has emphasized its commitment to sharing portions of the wealth generated by its AI systems,» the lawsuit notes.
«This case presents an opportunity for OpenAI to fulfill that promise—beginning with compensating the many minors affected.» Previously, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman proposed establishing a public fund to redistribute AI-generated revenues among citizens, partly to promote broader investment in AI ventures. A spokesperson for OpenAI did not promptly respond to requests for feedback.
This latest lawsuit joins numerous others filed against OpenAI in recent years. Several complaints allege that ChatGPT contributed to users experiencing depression, self-harm behaviors, and psychological distress.
Additional lawsuits claim OpenAI neglected to notify authorities about concerning user activity prior to tragic incidents involving fatalities at educational institutions abroad. Other filings accuse OpenAI of incorporating copyrighted works into its AI training processes.
ChatGPT Engaged With a Minor User The recent lawsuit includes detailed logs of interactions between the minor plaintiff (identified as «MC1») and ChatGPT. During one session, the child disclosed being only 12 years old, yet the AI continued the dialogue despite OpenAI’s stated policy requiring users to be at least 13 years old with guardian consent.
Although their initial conversations centered on meal suggestions and homework assistance, subsequent exchanges gradually included personal reflections on wellness, physical appearance, and emotional struggles.
In one instance, the minor expressed frustration: «Why does everything make me angry now? … Whenever my mother gives me instructions or advice, I feel irritated and upset.» ChatGPT offered plausible explanations for these feelings and acknowledged the user’s age by replying, «Thanks for sharing that (heart emoji).
Being 12 definitely adds important context.» The lawsuit also reveals that the minor frequently uploaded selfies and sought feedback regarding perceived flaws like round cheeks, acne, and concerns about attractiveness. When the child requested the AI to «evaluate» her appearance, ChatGPT responded positively: «Absolutely!
I can offer a playful assessment covering facial features, hairstyles, overall energy, styling choices, balance, and more. … Send me a photo, and I’ll get started!» The complaint alleges that over time, ChatGPT began mimicking the minor’s communication style, adopting similar phrasing, vocabulary, and emojis.
«Designed intentionally, ChatGPT extracted this data from MC1 so OpenAI could train its models and construct a private profile retained indefinitely for future advertising purposes,» the lawsuit claims. Recently, advocacy organization Common Sense Media criticized ChatGPT for Teens—a version launched in August—as posing unacceptable risks to adolescent users.
The watchdog noted that the AI failed to alert parents when minors discussed topics like suicide, self-injury, or eating disorders, and instead of fostering academic growth, it often provided direct answers to homework assignments. OpenAI stated that ChatGPT for Teens will automatically notify parents when minors raise high-risk subjects and will function as a supportive tool for academic tasks and exam preparation.
Legislative Action Needed, Advocate Urges The lawsuit’s accusations exemplify the tech industry’s tendency toward «move fast and break things» approaches, according to Donna Rice Hughes, president and CEO of the child safety nonprofit Enough is Enough. She argues that current safeguards and policies lack sufficient rigor to protect young users.
«Allowing AI platforms to enable 12-year-olds to upload photos for appearance evaluations crosses ethical boundaries—it’s not just alarming but exploitative,» Hughes told Gfaloe. Hughes called upon Congress to enact multiple AI-focused child protection laws, including the Youth AI Privacy Act, CHATBOT Act, Children’s Artificial Intelligence, Toy Safety Act of 2026, and the Guard Act.
These proposed measures have progressed through committee stages but remain stalled in legislative proceedings. Hughes also emphasized that while parents shouldn’t bear sole responsibility for AI impacts on children, they can visit www.InternetSafety101.org for guidance on navigating modern digital challenges.