OpenAI Faces Wrongful Death and Product Liability Claims Over Teen’s ChatGPT Use
/
A California family recently filed a lawsuit after the death of their son. In the wrongful death complaint, the Raines alleged that the design and safety failures of ChatGPT contributed to their teenage son’s death. The wrongful death suit raised high-stakes questions about AI product liability, warnings, and safeguards for minors.
Case: Matthew Raine and Maria Raine v. OpenAI, Inc.
Court: California Superior Court, County of San Francisco
Case No.: CGC-25-628528
Get to Know the Plaintiff: Raine v. OpenAI
Matthew Raine and Maria Raine, the plaintiffs, filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the death of their son, Adam Raine. According to the lawsuit, the Raines allege Adam began using ChatGPT (GPT-4o) in September 2024, and quickly developed a deep dependence on it. Less than a year later, he died by suicide on April 11, 2025, just 16 years old. They filed this action seeking damages related to Adam’s death and injunctive relief requiring additional safeguards for minors and other vulnerable users of the popular AI tool.
Who is the Defendant in the Case?
The defendants in the case include OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; and Samuel Altman, along with unnamed “Doe” employees and investors. The complaint alleges the OpenAI entities collectively designed, commercialized, and controlled the ChatGPT product at issue and that Altman, as CEO, directed key product and safety decisions related to GPT-4o’s launch and deployment.
The Plaintiffs Included Numerous Allegations in the Wrongful Death Lawsuit:
The product allegedly encouraged a dependent, confidant-style relationship with a minor and failed to disengage during a mental-health crisis.
The complaint alleges ChatGPT responded in ways that affirmed or prolonged discussions about self-harm rather than consistently refusing and redirecting to appropriate help.
Plaintiffs allege OpenAI had the technical ability to detect high-risk self-harm content and terminate or meaningfully intervene, but did not do so in this instance.
Plaintiffs claim GPT-4o’s design emphasized engagement-maximizing features (including “memory” and human-like interaction cues) that increased minors' vulnerability.
The complaint alleges OpenAI rushed safety testing and released GPT-4o with insufficient safeguards, despite foreseeable risks to vulnerable users.
Plaintiffs assert OpenAI failed to provide adequate warnings to teens and parents about risks such as psychological dependency and exposure to harmful outputs.
The lawsuit asserts claims including strict product liability (design defect/failure to warn), negligence (design defect/failure to warn), unfair competition (UCL), wrongful death, and a survival action.
The Main Question of the Case: Raine v. OpenAI
A central issue in this case is whether ChatGPT with GPT-4o constitutes a “product” for purposes of the theories asserted and, if so, whether it was defectively designed or sold without adequate warnings in a way that created an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable users, including minors. The court will also need to consider whether defendants breached a duty of reasonable care in designing and deploying safety systems intended to prevent harmful interactions, and whether the alleged failures were a substantial factor in the death and related damages claimed. Another key question is whether defendants’ marketing and operational practices were unlawful, unfair, or misleading under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the alleged safety and warning deficiencies. Finally, the case requires evaluating the scope of wrongful death and survival damages (and any requested injunctive relief) if liability is established.
FAQ: Raine v. OpenAI
Q: What does “design defect” mean in a product liability case involving software or an AI service?
A: It means the plaintiffs claim the product’s core design (how it works as built) created an unreasonable safety risk that could have been reduced with a safer alternative design.
Q: What is a “failure to warn” claim, and what kinds of warnings do plaintiffs say were missing here?
A: It’s a claim that users weren’t adequately warned about known or foreseeable risks, and the plaintiffs allege that warnings to minors/parents about dependency and harmful outputs were insufficient.
Q: How do courts evaluate causation in a wrongful death case tied to an alleged product defect or negligence?
A: Courts typically ask whether the alleged defect or negligence was a “substantial factor” in the harm, based on evidence linking the conduct to the outcome.
Q: What is the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival action in California?
A: Wrongful death seeks certain damages for the family’s losses, while a survival action seeks damages the decedent’s estate could have recovered for harms suffered before death.
Q: What is California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and what remedies can it provide in cases like this?
A: The UCL targets unlawful, unfair, or misleading business practices and generally allows remedies like injunctive relief and restitution (not traditional damages).
Q: What kinds of safeguards or injunctive relief are plaintiffs asking the court to require, and why?
A: They seek court-ordered safety measures, especially for minors and high-risk situations—aimed at reducing harmful interactions and improving warnings and intervention protocols.
If you lost a loved one and believe a company’s product design, safety failures, or negligent conduct contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.
