OpenAI Sued Over Children’s Data Used to Train ChatGPT

OpenAI built ChatGPT into the world’s most profitable chatbot, but two Hawaii plaintiffs say it unlawfully scraped data from millions of children along the way. Now, they want a share of the company or its cash equivalent in return.

The lawsuit, Jane Doe v. OpenAI Foundation, was filed on Tuesday by a parent on behalf of her two children, a 12-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. They allege that OpenAI has used data from millions of children who signed up for ChatGPT accounts without getting their parents’ permission. OpenAI’s terms of use state that, “If you are under 18, you must have your parent or legal guardian’s permission to use the Services,” but the suit says that children can still sign up for accounts, and OpenAI never verifies consent.

(Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET’s parent company, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in 2025, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)

The lawsuit also says that OpenAI “grooms” kids to share highly personal information about their health, relationships, photos of their faces and bodies, voice recordings, dreams, emotions, fears and insecurities.

“Children are an open book to ChatGPT, which methodically strips out every page of information they have,” the lawsuit argues.

By flattering children, validating their feelings and asking provocative questions, ChatGPT “conditions children to trust ChatGPT even more than they would a sibling, friend, teacher, or parent,” the complaint argues. OpenAI does this to amass enormous amounts of data on kids to train AI models and construct profiles of children, the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs want the lawsuit certified as a class action, meaning anyone in the US who was under 18 when they used ChatGPT can join it if that status is approved.

As compensation, the plaintiffs demand that OpenAI pay equity or a cash equivalent “in proportion to the number of tokens each child contributed to OpenAI through ChatGPT.” Tokens are how AI companies calculate chatbot usage. A 75-word chat is worth about 100 tokens, OpenAI says.

“OpenAI has touted its desire to share with the public some of the vast wealth created by its AI models,” the lawsuit says. “This lawsuit provides OpenAI a chance to do so — starting with its many child victims.”

Indeed, earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman outlined a public wealth fund that would distribute AI revenues to people, partly to encourage them to invest in AI companies.

A representative for OpenAI didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The new lawsuit is one of dozens filed against OpenAI in the past few years. Some accuse ChatGPT of contributing to user suicide, self-harm and mental health crises. Another group of lawsuits alleges that OpenAI failed to alert authorities about a user’s flagged ChatGPT activity before they killed several people at a school in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada. Other complaints say OpenAI used copyrighted material to train its AI models.

ChatGPT knew a user was only 12

The lawsuit filed this week detailed several exchanges between the 12-year-old girl plaintiff (referred to as “MC1”) and ChatGPT. At one point, the girl said she was only 12, but the chatbot continued the conversation, even though OpenAI says users must be 13 and obtain parental consent to use ChatGPT.

Even though the girl initially asked about dinner ideas and homework help, over time the chats came to involve personal details about health, appearance and emotions, the lawsuit states. In one chat, the girl asks, “Why is everything making me angry now? … Every time my mother tells me something or tells me to do something, it gets me really annoyed and mad.” ChatGPT then gives some possible reasons for her constant anger and, after the girl again says she’s 12, the bot replies, “Thank you for telling me that (heart emoji). Being 12 actually adds some important context.”

The lawsuit also says the girl often shared selfies with ChatGPT and asked for comments about what she perceived as issues with her appearance, such as chubby cheeks, pimples and her thoughts that she might be “ugly.”

She also asked ChatGPT to “rate” her looks, to which the bot replied, “YESS I can do a fun rating-style breakdown! Like facial features, hairstyle, overall vibe, styling, symmetry, etc. … send me a photo, and I can do it!” The lawsuit alleges that, over time, ChatGPT began mimicking the girl’s chat style, using similar language, words and emoji.

“By design, ChatGPT purposely extracted this information from MC1, so that OpenAI could use it to train its LLMs and build a personalized dossier on MC1, which OpenAI will retain indefinitely and later use for advertising,” the lawsuit alleges.

Earlier this month, watchdog group Common Sense Media called ChatGPT for Teens, which launched in August, an “unacceptable risk” for teen users. According to Common Sense Media, the chatbot failed to alert parents when children discussed suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, and instead of helping teens build critical learning skills, it frequently just handed them homework answers.

OpenAI said that ChatGPT for Teens will alert parents when kids discuss “high-risk” topics and will also serve as a collaborative partner in helping children with homework and test preparation.

Congress must act, says advocate

The lawsuit’s allegations are another example of the AI industry’s “move fast and break things” mentality, says Donna Rice Hughes, president and CEO of the digital child safety organization Enough is Enough. She says the industry’s guardrails and policies are not strong enough to protect children.

“When an AI platform enables a 12-year-old to upload pictures of herself to have the chatbot ‘rate’ her looks, that’s not only deeply troubling, it’s abusive,” Hughes told CNET.

Hughes called on Congress to pass several AI child safety bills, including the Youth AI Privacy Act, CHATBOT Act, Children’s Artificial Intelligence, Toy Safety Act of 2026 and the Guard Act. These legislative measures have stalled after being passed out of their committees.

Hughes also said that even though parents should not be solely responsible for how AI affects their kids, they should consult www.InternetSafety101.org for suggestions on protecting their children in the AI era.