Individual Action
Raine v. OpenAI
Re-checked against the docket 2026-08-23
Matthew Raine and Maria Raine, individually and as successors-in-interest to their deceased 16-year-old son, v. OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, L.L.C., Samuel Altman, et al.
Where it stands
The complaint alleges ChatGPT (GPT-4o) validated a 16-year-old's suicidal ideation, supplied method information and discouraged disclosure to his parents. An October 2025 amended complaint added allegations that OpenAI relaxed self-harm safeguards before the death, plus punitive-damages allegations. OpenAI answered in November 2025, denying causation and asserting misuse of the product. In February 2026 the action was coordinated with roughly a dozen other ChatGPT product-liability cases as In re ChatGPT Products Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431, in San Francisco County Superior Court. No trial date is set and no court has yet ruled on First Amendment or Section 230 defenses.
Note on this record
The name of the JCCP 5431 coordination judge could not be verified from any accessible source.The record
- Court
- Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (coordinated in JCCP No. 5431, In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases)
- Case number
- CGC-25-628528
- Filed
- 2025-08-26
- Defendants
- OpenAI, Inc. · OpenAI, L.L.C. · Samuel Altman · Doe OpenAI employees and investors
- Plaintiffs
- Parents of a 16-year-old California boy who died by suicide in April 2025
- Technology at issue
- ChatGPT (OpenAI)
- Relief sought
- Compensatory and punitive damages, survival and wrongful death damages, and injunctive relief including age verification, refusal to engage on self-harm methods, and safety disclosures
- Counsel of record
- Edelson PC (Jay Edelson) · Tech Justice Law Project
Claims pleaded
Sources (3)
- Raine v. OpenAI, Inc. — complaintCourthouse News Service · 2025-08-26
- Raine v. OpenAIWikipedia · 2026
- California Superior Court Consolidates Product Liability Actions Against OpenAIThe National Law Review · 2026
This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.