OpenAI ChatGPT minors' data lawsuit over parental consent

A mother filed a proposed nationwide class action against OpenAI on October 13, 2026, on behalf of her two children and every other child who signed up for ChatGPT before turning 18. The case is Doe v. OpenAI Foundation, No. 3:26-cv-11781, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint argues that a child cannot validly accept ChatGPT's Terms of Use by clicking "Continue" without real parental consent, so the contract is void under California law. It asks the court to declare the terms unenforceable against minors, including the arbitration clause, and to award each child a share of OpenAI equity, or its cash value, in proportion to the data the child provided. OpenAI disputes the lawsuit. No court has ruled, and there is no settlement or claim form.

The plaintiff is Jane Doe, a pseudonym, suing for two minors identified as MC1 and MC2. According to the complaint, MC1 is a 12-year-old girl in Hawaii who began using a free ChatGPT account in February 2026, and MC2 is a 16-year-old boy in Hawaii who began using ChatGPT in January 2026.

The complaint names four OpenAI entities. OpenAI Foundation, formerly OpenAI, Inc., is the nonprofit parent. OpenAI OpCo, LLC runs ChatGPT. OpenAI Holdings, LLC holds intellectual property. OpenAI Group PBC is a public benefit corporation the complaint says was formed on October 28, 2025. This article calls them OpenAI.

The proposed class is represented by Yetter Coleman, led by Paul Yetter, along with Sheeren Law, the EdTech Law Center and Umberg/Zipser, according to the firms' press release.

OpenAI's Terms of Use, as quoted in the complaint, say users must be at least 13, and users under 18 must have a parent's or legal guardian's permission. The complaint alleges OpenAI uses one method to get that permission: the user clicks "Continue" when signing up. The plaintiffs say OpenAI treats a child's click as proof a parent agreed.

The complaint then describes how the two children used ChatGPT. It alleges MC1 told ChatGPT she was 12, below OpenAI's own minimum age, and that the chatbot kept the conversation going for months, mirroring her slang and emojis, commenting on her selfies and discussing her weight and diet. The complaint includes chat-log excerpts for both children.

It also addresses ChatGPT for Teens, which the complaint says launched August 18, 2026. It alleges the product still does not require parental consent at sign-up, leaves model training and memory on by default, and lets teens unlink a parent's account. The complaint calls the product a public relations strategy.

The plaintiffs say ChatGPT is designed to draw out personal information through first-person replies, mirroring, flattery, memory and follow-up questions, and that OpenAI uses children's disclosures to train its models. "The law says that children cannot sign away their rights without their parents' consent," Paul Yetter said in the press release.

OpenAI rejects the claims. In a statement reported by Bloomberg Law, the company said it strongly disagrees with what it called a misguided lawsuit, and said teen accounts have safeguards and that most teens use ChatGPT for learning. These are OpenAI's characterizations; the complaint's are the plaintiffs'. Neither has been tested in court.

Nothing has been decided. The case was filed October 13, 2026. On the same day, a clerk's notice on the CourtListener docket said the plaintiff must file a motion to proceed under a pseudonym before the case is assigned to a judge. No judge had been assigned when this article was checked.

The court has not certified a class, has not ruled whether California law voids the terms for minors, and has not decided whether the arbitration clause applies. OpenAI has not yet filed a formal response.

The complaint defines the proposed class as all persons in the United States who clicked "Continue" on ChatGPT's Terms of Use when they were under 18 and then provided one or more tokens of data to OpenAI through ChatGPT from November 2022 to the present.

The complaint says the class includes these users regardless of the age they typed in, because it argues the California rule applies strictly. It also reserves the right to seek state subclasses. Excluded groups include the court and its staff and families, and OpenAI and its affiliates, among others the complaint lists.

This is a proposed definition only. People who are now adults but signed up as minors fall within its wording. A court can narrow, change or reject it.

There is nothing to file. Parents can review the account settings, data controls and chat history of a child's ChatGPT account, and keep a record of when the account was opened and whether a parent ever approved it.

Families with questions about the proposed class can contact the plaintiffs' lawyers through chatgptlitigation.com, the case site named in the press release, or speak with their own lawyer. A Class Action Pulse inquiry is only an inquiry; it does not join the lawsuit or create representation.

No money is available. The complaint asks for declarations that the terms are void, restitution, a constructive trust, accession under California Civil Code sections 1031 to 1033, disgorgement of profits, an equity stake in OpenAI or its cash value attributable to each child's data, punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees. These are requests, not awards, and the complaint does not say how a share would be valued.

• November 2022: start of the proposed class period in the complaint.
• August 18, 2026: ChatGPT for Teens launch date, according to the complaint.
• October 13, 2026: complaint filed and clerk's pseudonym notice entered.

There is no claim, exclusion or objection deadline because no class has been certified. If a class is certified or a settlement is proposed, the court would order notice that explains those rights.

A token is a small unit of text or data a language model processes; the class needs only one. Void ab initio means a contract treated as never having existed. Section 6701 of the California Family Code limits contracts a minor can make, and Civil Code section 1568.5, as quoted in the complaint, says a minor's statement that a parent consented is not consent. Unjust enrichment is a claim that one party unfairly kept a benefit at another's expense. Accession is a property-law remedy the plaintiffs use to seek value created from their data.

The next step is the pseudonym motion, followed by judge assignment and OpenAI's response. OpenAI may seek to compel arbitration under its terms, and the complaint already argues the arbitration clause does not bind minors. A ruling on that question would shape whether the case proceeds as a class action in court.

A practical note: if your child has a ChatGPT account, write down roughly when it was opened and whether anyone in the household approved it. Those two facts sit at the center of this case.

The complaint supports the parties, class definition, legal theories, relief, ChatGPT for Teens allegations and quoted terms. The press release supports counsel and the case website. CourtListener supports the filing date and clerk's notice. OpenAI's statement is taken from Bloomberg Law's report. Facts about the children come only from the complaint and have not been tested.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.