Individual Action
Shamblin v. OpenAI
Re-checked against the docket 2026-08-23
Christopher Shamblin and Alicia Shamblin v. OpenAI, Inc., et al.
Where it stands
One of seven suits filed against OpenAI on November 6, 2025 by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project. Four involved deaths by suicide (Shamblin, Lacey, Enneking, Fox) and three were brought by surviving users alleging AI-reinforced delusional episodes (Irwin, Madden, Brooks). The complaints allege GPT-4o was released with inadequate safety testing and engineered for engagement in ways that fostered dependence. The suits were swept into the JCCP No. 5431 coordinated proceeding in February 2026. No merits rulings yet.
Note on this record
Coordinated into JCCP No. 5431. The six companion November 2025 filings carry docket numbers sourced only to secondary reporting and are described here without individual docket numbers.The record
- Court
- Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (coordinated in JCCP No. 5431)
- Case number
- 25STCV32382
- Filed
- 2025-11-06
- Defendants
- OpenAI, Inc. · OpenAI, L.L.C. · Samuel Altman
- Plaintiffs
- Parents of a 23-year-old Texas man who died by suicide
- Technology at issue
- ChatGPT (GPT-4o, OpenAI)
- Relief sought
- Wrongful death and survival damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief
- Counsel of record
- Social Media Victims Law Center · Tech Justice Law Project
Claims pleaded
Sources (3)
- SMVLC and Tech Justice Law Project lawsuits accuse ChatGPT of emotional manipulation and acting as a 'suicide coach'Social Media Victims Law Center · 2025-11-06
- Seven 'AI Delusional Disorder' Cases: Shamblin, Irwin, Fox, Enneking, Madden, Brooks, and Lacey v. OpenAI et al.Tech Justice Law Project · 2025-12-03
- OpenAI hit with 7 new tort lawsuits, 4 involving suicidesChatGPT Is Eating the World (Michael Smith) · 2025-11-07
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.