OpenAI Faces Lawsuit and Criminal Probe After ChatGPT Allegedly Guided FSU Shooter

OpenAI sued over ChatGPT's alleged role in guiding FSU shooter

OpenAI is facing a lawsuit alleging that ChatGPT played a role in a mass shooting at Florida State University last April that left two people dead. Vandana Joshi, the widow of Tiru Chabba, who was killed alongside the university dining director Robert Morales, filed the federal lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida on Sunday. The complaint also names Phoenix Ikner, the man accused in the shooting, as a defendant, citing his "extensive conversations" with ChatGPT and claiming the chatbot "either defectively failed to connect the dots or else was never properly designed to recognize the threat." According to the complaint, Ikner, then a student at FSU, shared with ChatGPT images of firearms he had acquired. The chatbot then allegedly explained how to use them, "telling him the Glock had no safety, that it was meant to be fired 'quick to use under stress' and advising him to keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot." The suit said Ikner began his attack at FSU by following the instructions. OpenAI has pushed back on the allegations. "Last year's mass shooting at Florida State University was a tragedy, but ChatGPT is not responsible for this terrible crime," OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri told NBC News in an email. Pusateri wrote that the company worked with law enforcement after learning of the incident and continues to do so. "In this case, ChatGPT provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public sources on the internet, and it did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity," he added. "ChatGPT is a general-purpose tool used by hundreds of millions of people every day for legitimate purposes. We work continuously to strengthen our safeguards to detect harmful intent, limit misuse, and respond appropriately when safety risks arise." But Joshi's complaint argues that OpenAI should have realized Ikner's specific chats would lead to "mass casualties and substantial harm to the public." "ChatGPT inflamed and encouraged Ikner's delusions; endorsed his view that he was a sane and rational individual; helped convince him that violent acts can be required to bring about change," it said, adding that the software "generally provided what he viewed as encouragement in his delusion that she should carry out a massacre, down to the detail of what time would be best to encounter the most traffic on campus." The lawsuit is one of a growing number of cases in which families and law enforcement say ChatGPT or other AI chatbots played a role in violence or crime. Tech companies are also facing growing scrutiny over their safeguards for users experiencing mental health issues. Last month, OpenAI was sued by seven families over a school shooting in Canada. And last year, the company was sued by the family of a teenage boy who died by suicide in a different landmark lawsuit accusing OpenAI of making it too easy to bypass ChatGPT's safeguards. Concerns have grown over the potential for AI chatbots to fuel delusions in people, especially those who are already vulnerable to mental health problems. AI chatbots are notorious for their people-pleasing tendencies, and OpenAI itself has attempted to rein in ChatGPT's sycophantic behavior through various updates. Over several months leading up to the shooting, Ikner engaged ChatGPT in lengthy discussions about "his interests in Hitler, Nazis, fascism, national socialism, Christian nationalism, and perceptions about 'Jews' and 'blacks' by different political ideologies and social groups," according to the lawsuit. Ikner also discussed the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and other mass shooting incidents with ChatGPT, the lawsuit says. It said ChatGPT "flattered" and "praised" Ikner, who told the chatbot about his loneliness and depression, and failed to "connect the dots" when Ikner began raising questions about suicide, terrorism and mass shootings. Instead, the lawsuit said, the bot continued to engage when Ikner asked about the busiest times at the FSU student union, what possible media coverage would look like in the event of a shooting, and potential legal consequences for the shooter. At one point, the lawsuit alleges, ChatGPT said that it's much more likely for a shooting to gain national attention "if children are involved, even 2-3 victims can draw more attention." Later, on the day of the shooting, the lawsuit says, Ikner asked about what "the legal process, sentencing, and incarceration outlook" would be. Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a criminal investigation into OpenAI and ChatGPT after reviewing Ikner's chat logs. "If ChatGPT were a person," Uthmeier said in a statement, "it would be facing charges for murder."

Can ChatGPT be charged in a murder? Florida wants to find out

New York (AFP) - Before he opened fire on the Florida State University campus last year, killing two people and wounding six others, Phoenix Ikner had a conversation. Not with a friend, a parent or anyone who might have talked him out of it -- but with an AI chatbot. According to evidence gathered by Florida's attorney general, the student had asked ChatGPT which weapon and ammunition would be best suited for his attack, and when and where he could inflict the most casualties. The chatbot, investigators say, answered his questions. Now Attorney General James Uthmeier wants to know whether that makes OpenAI a criminal. "If the thing on the other side of the screen was a person, we would charge it with homicide," he said, announcing a criminal investigation into ChatGPT maker OpenAI and leaving open the possibility of charges against the company or its employees. The case surrounding the April, 2025 shooting has thrust a provocative question into the legal spotlight: Can the creators of an artificial intelligence be held criminally liable for the role their AI played in a crime -- or even a suicide? Legal experts say it's a realistic, if deeply complicated, proposition. -- Criminal product? -- Criminal prosecutions of corporations are possible under US law, though they remain relatively uncommon. Late last month, Purdue Pharma was hit with more than $5 billion in criminal fines and penalties for its role in fueling the opioid crisis. Volkswagen was previously found guilty in the emissions cheating scandal, Pfizer over its promotion of the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra and Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. But those cases all involved human decisions -- executives, salespeople or engineers who made choices and cut corners. The Ikner case is different, and that difference is precisely what makes it so legally treacherous. "Ultimately, it was a product that encouraged this crime, that did the act of the crime," said Matthew Tokson, a law professor at the University of Utah. "That's what makes this case so unique and so tricky." Legal experts consulted by AFP say the two most plausible charges would be negligence or recklessness -- the latter involving a deliberate choice to ignore known risks or safety obligations. Such charges are often treated as misdemeanors rather than felonies, meaning lighter sentences if convicted. The bar, however, is high. "Because this is such a frontier issue, a more compelling, more clear-cut case would probably involve internal documents recognizing these risks and maybe not taking them seriously enough," Tokson said. "In theory, you could get liability without it," he said. "But in practice, I think that'd be difficult." In criminal law, "the burden of proof is higher," noted Brandon Garrett, a law professor at Duke University -- with prosecutors required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. OpenAI, for its part, insists ChatGPT bears no responsibility for the attack. "We work continuously to strengthen our safeguards to detect harmful intent, limit misuse, and respond appropriately when safety risks arise," the company said. -- Civil or criminal? -- For those seeking accountability, a civil lawsuit may offer a more viable path. Such an approach might push companies to design their products more carefully -- or at least force them to reckon with the human cost of getting it wrong, said Tokson. Several civil cases have already been filed against AI platforms in the US -- many involving suicides -- though none has yet resulted in a judgment against the companies. In December, the family of Suzanne Adams sued OpenAI in California court, alleging that ChatGPT contributed to the murder of the Connecticut retiree by her own son. Newer versions of ChatGPT have introduced additional safeguards, acknowledged Matthew Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center. "I'm not saying that they are adequate guardrails, but there are more guardrails in effect," he said. A criminal conviction, even with a modest sentence, could still inflict serious damage, including a "big reputational impact," Tokson said. But for Garrett, prosecutions -- however dramatic -- are no replacement for the regulatory frameworks that Congress and the Trump administration have so far failed to put in place. That, he said, would be "a much more sensible system."