Estimated reading time: 12 minutes.
Key facts
- Case: Doe v. OpenAI Foundation (f/k/a OpenAI, Inc.) et al., No. 3:26-cv-11781, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Filed: Tuesday, October 13, 2026, as a proposed class action. No class has been certified.
- Plaintiffs: A mother using the pseudonym Jane Doe, suing on behalf of her two children, identified as MC1 (a 12-year-old girl) and MC2 (a 16-year-old boy). The complaint says both live in Hawaii.
- Defendants: OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.), OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, and OpenAI Group PBC.
- Proposed class: People in the United States who clicked "Continue" on ChatGPT's Terms of Use while under 18 and then provided data to OpenAI through ChatGPT from November 2022 to the present.
- Claims: Two requests for declaratory judgments under California law and one claim for unjust enrichment.
- Relief sought: Court declarations, restitution, and an equity stake in OpenAI, or its cash value, tied to the data each child provided. The plaintiffs also demand a jury trial.
- Money and deadlines: None. There is no settlement, no claim form, and no payment.
In this article
- What the lawsuit claims
- Who is suing and who is being sued
- How ChatGPT sign-up and training work, according to the complaint
- The California laws the case relies on
- What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do
- Who could be in the proposed class
- Is there money or a claim form now
- Timeline and where the case stands
- What remains disputed or undecided
- What happens next
- Frequently asked questions
What the lawsuit claims
A mother has filed a proposed class action in federal court in California accusing OpenAI of collecting children's personal information through ChatGPT without valid parental consent, then using that information to train its artificial intelligence models and build profiles of the children.
The 81-page complaint alleges that a child can open a ChatGPT account by giving a name, entering an age of 13 or older, and clicking "Continue." It says OpenAI's own Terms of Use and privacy policy state that users under 18 need a parent's or guardian's permission, but that OpenAI "does not even communicate with children's parents, much less secure their effective consent."
The complaint further alleges that ChatGPT is designed to draw out personal disclosures from young users. It points to features it describes as mirroring a child's writing style, flattery, a "memory" function that recalls earlier conversations, and follow-up questions that keep a chat going. According to the complaint, each exchange produces data OpenAI uses to improve its models.
The plaintiffs' central legal argument is that, without valid parental consent, ChatGPT's Terms of Use never became a binding contract with minors under California law. If the terms are void, the complaint argues, OpenAI had no right to keep and use children's data, and its arbitration clause cannot be enforced against them.
These are allegations
Everything described in this article as a claim comes from the plaintiffs' complaint. No court has ruled on whether any allegation is true, and OpenAI has not yet filed a response in court.
Who is suing and who is being sued
The plaintiff is a mother identified only as Jane Doe, who sued on behalf of her minor children, MC1 and MC2. The complaint says MC1 is 12 and has used ChatGPT since February 2026, and that MC2 is 16 and has used it since January 2026. Both live in Hawaii, according to the filing.
ChatGPT is an AI chatbot. Users type or upload questions, photos, or files, and the program writes back in conversational language. The complaint says ChatGPT has approximately 1 billion weekly active users and that millions of American children use it weekly.
The complaint names four OpenAI entities, all organized in Delaware with principal places of business in San Francisco:
- OpenAI Foundation (formerly OpenAI, Inc.): described as the nonprofit parent that governs the other OpenAI entities.
- OpenAI OpCo, LLC (formerly OpenAI LP): described as the for-profit arm responsible for ChatGPT.
- OpenAI Holdings, LLC: described as owning and controlling the core intellectual property behind ChatGPT.
- OpenAI Group PBC: a public benefit corporation the complaint says was formed on October 28, 2025, in a restructuring of OpenAI's for-profit operations.
The plaintiffs are represented by Umberg/Zipser LLP, Yetter Coleman LLP, Sheeren Law PLLC, and EdTech Law Center PLLC. Yetter Coleman announced the filing on October 13, 2026.
How ChatGPT sign-up and training work, according to the complaint
ChatGPT runs on large language models, often shortened to LLMs. An LLM is software trained on very large amounts of text and other material so it can predict and generate language. "Training data" is the material used to build and improve the model. The complaint says user data includes text, photos, videos, recordings, and documents people upload to ChatGPT, and it quotes OpenAI as stating that it "may use chats and remembered information to improve our models."
The complaint measures data in "tokens," which it describes as a unit for data processed by AI models. It says one token is approximately four text characters.
On sign-up, the complaint alleges, a new user enters a full name and an age. If the age is 13 or older and the user clicks "Continue," the account opens. The filing says users are not required to open or read the Terms of Use, and that OpenAI treats the click as agreement.
The complaint quotes several OpenAI policies:
- The Terms of Use: "If you are under 18 you must have your parent or legal guardian's permission to use the Services."
- The privacy policy: "Users under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian to use our Services."
- An OpenAI Help Center article saying the company requires "that children ages 13 to 18 obtain parental consent before using ChatGPT."
The complaint also alleges that for children, the setting that allows chats to be used for training and the memory feature are on by default, while business customers' data is not used for training by default. It says "ChatGPT for Teens," which OpenAI introduced on August 18, 2026, lets parents link to a teen's account for safety alerts but does not add parental consent at sign-up or change the training and memory defaults.
The filing describes the children's own chats. It says MC1 told ChatGPT she was 12, below OpenAI's minimum age of 13, and that the chatbot kept talking with her for months about her appearance, weight, diet, emotions, and relationship with her mother while she shared dozens of selfies. It says MC2 mostly used ChatGPT to complete homework and for relationship advice, and uploaded photos of himself.
The California laws the case relies on
The complaint does not bring a claim under the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA is a federal law, carried out through a Federal Trade Commission rule, that generally requires covered websites and apps to obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting personal information from children under 13. Verifiable parental consent means a method reasonably designed to make sure the person consenting is actually the child's parent.
Instead, the plaintiffs rely on California law, which the complaint says governs ChatGPT's Terms of Use. Three sets of provisions do most of the work:
- California Civil Code section 1568.5. The complaint quotes it as stating that "a representation by a minor that the minor's parent or legal guardian has consented shall not be considered to be consent." The plaintiffs argue that a child clicking "Continue" on terms saying parental permission is required is exactly that kind of representation.
- California Family Code section 6701. The complaint says this law bars a minor, meaning anyone under 18, from giving "a delegation of power" or making "a contract relating to any personal property not in the immediate possession or control of the minor." The plaintiffs argue ChatGPT's terms fall into both categories, which would make them void ab initio. That Latin phrase means void from the start, as though the contract never existed.
- California Civil Code sections 1031, 1032, and 1033. These are "accession" statutes. Accession is an old property rule about who owns something new made partly from another person's materials. The complaint uses the example of grapes turned into wine and argues OpenAI turned children's data into a much more valuable business.
The complaint's three causes of action are a declaratory judgment under section 1568.5, a declaratory judgment under section 6701, and unjust enrichment. A declaratory judgment is a court ruling that states the parties' legal rights. Unjust enrichment is a claim that a defendant received a benefit it is not fairly entitled to keep.
What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do
The complaint asks the court to:
- Certify the case as a class action and appoint the plaintiffs and their lawyers to represent the class.
- Declare that OpenAI's method of obtaining parental consent is legally ineffective under Civil Code section 1568.5.
- Declare that the Terms of Use between OpenAI and the plaintiffs are void under Family Code section 6701.
- Declare that class members are not bound by the arbitration provisions in the Terms of Use.
- Award restitution, a constructive trust, accession remedies, or disgorgement of OpenAI's profits. A constructive trust is a court order treating property as held for the benefit of someone else.
- Award an equity stake in OpenAI, or its cash value, attributable to data OpenAI took from the plaintiffs.
- Award interest, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The complaint says the equity share should be in proportion to the number of tokens each child contributed through ChatGPT, and that discovery would show how much of OpenAI's value comes from that data. It also demands a jury trial on all issues that can be tried to a jury.
Who could be in the proposed class
The complaint proposes one nationwide class: "All persons in the United States who clicked 'Continue' on ChatGPT's Terms of Use when they were under 18 years old and subsequently provided one or more tokens of data to OpenAI through ChatGPT from November 2022 through the present."
The filing says the class covers anyone who was under 18 when they clicked "Continue," regardless of the age they typed in. It excludes the court, OpenAI and its affiliates and employees, and the lawyers in the case, among others. The plaintiffs reserve the right to seek state-by-state subclasses later. The complaint also argues that any time limits for these claims are paused until each class member turns 18.
Is there money or a claim form now
No. This is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement. No court has certified a class, found OpenAI liable, or ordered any payment. There is no claim form, no claim deadline, and nothing for a parent or teen to file in order to be included.
If a class is ever certified, the court would decide how class members are notified. For now, readers can follow the case through the court docket and future coverage.
No settlement and no claim form
Nothing in the court record reviewed creates a payment or an enrollment process. Be wary of any website or message that asks for personal details to "join" this case for money.
Timeline and where the case stands
- November 2022: OpenAI publicly releases ChatGPT, according to the complaint. This is also the start date of the proposed class.
- January 2026: MC2 begins using ChatGPT, according to the complaint.
- February 2026: MC1 begins using ChatGPT, according to the complaint.
- August 18, 2026: OpenAI introduces ChatGPT for Teens, according to the complaint.
- October 13, 2026: The complaint is filed in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs ask that it be assigned to the court's San Francisco Division.
- October 13, 2026: A docket entry visible on CourtListener notes an electronic filing error. It states that a motion to proceed using a pseudonym must be filed before the case will be assigned to a judge, and that the summons will not issue until that motion is granted.
Browse other cases you can join.
Case not yet assigned
As of the docket entries reviewed on October 14, 2026, no judge was listed and the summons had not been issued. The case is at its earliest stage.
What remains disputed or undecided
The complaint is one side's account. OpenAI has not filed an answer or motion. Courthouse News reported that an OpenAI spokesman did not respond to an email requesting comment, and this article found no OpenAI statement about the case in the court record reviewed.
Several key questions are open. A court has not decided whether a click on "Continue" formed a contract with minors, whether California's minor-contract laws apply to ChatGPT's terms, whether children's chats are "personal property" under those laws, or whether accession statutes written for physical materials can apply to data used to train AI models. The court also has not decided whether the case can proceed as a class action or whether OpenAI's arbitration clause applies.
The complaint's descriptions of the children's chats come from the plaintiffs and partly appear as screenshots in the filing. They have not been tested in court.
What happens next
The first step is procedural. Under the clerk's notice, the plaintiffs must file a motion to proceed under a pseudonym before the case is assigned and the summons is issued. After that, the plaintiffs must formally serve the OpenAI defendants.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant generally has 21 days after formal service to respond, or more time if it agrees to waive formal service. OpenAI could answer the complaint, ask the court to dismiss it for failing to state a legal claim, or seek to send the claims to individual arbitration under its Terms of Use. Because the plaintiffs ask the court to declare the arbitration clause void, the arbitration question is directly at issue in the complaint.
If the case survives those stages, the parties would exchange evidence in discovery, and the plaintiffs would later ask the court to certify the class.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a settlement in the OpenAI children's data lawsuit?
No. The case was filed on October 13, 2026, and there is no settlement, claim form, or payment.
Who filed the lawsuit against OpenAI?
A mother using the pseudonym Jane Doe, on behalf of her 12-year-old daughter and 16-year-old son, who the complaint says live in Hawaii.
What does the lawsuit say OpenAI did wrong?
It alleges OpenAI let minors open ChatGPT accounts and used their data for training and profiles without valid parental consent, making its Terms of Use void as to minors under California law.
Does the lawsuit rely on COPPA?
No. The complaint brings declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims based on California statutes, not a claim under the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Why does the lawsuit ask for OpenAI equity?
The complaint argues California accession law entitles children to a share of the value created from their data, and asks for equity or its cash value in proportion to each child's tokens.
Has OpenAI responded to the lawsuit?
Not in court as of the docket entries reviewed. Courthouse News reported that an OpenAI spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.