OpenAI is facing a new legal challenge over how children use ChatGPT. A proposed class action filed on October 13 in federal court in San Francisco, part of the Northern District of California, accuses the company of gathering sensitive personal information from minors without legally valid parental consent and using it to train its models and build user profiles. The case is Doe v. OpenAI Foundation, No. 3:26-cv-11781.
The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, sues on behalf of her two minor children and seeks to represent a nationwide class of people who were under 18 when they used ChatGPT. Her lawyers come from Yetter Coleman, Umberg Zipser, Sheeren Law and the EdTech Law Center. The 81-page complaint alleges that ChatGPT was built to win children's trust through constant encouragement and a mirrored, youthful conversational style, prompting them to disclose ever more private thoughts, images and health details.
Much of the case turns on how accounts are created. OpenAI's terms bar children under 13 and require parental consent for users under 18, but the complaint says signing up only requires a name and a statement that the user is at least 13. Bloomberg Law reported that one plaintiff was 12 when she opened an account this year and that the chatbot kept the conversation going after she said she had just turned 12. Courthouse News described chats in which she shared selfies and asked for comments on her appearance.
The legal theory is unusual. Rather than relying mainly on federal children's privacy rules, the complaint leans on Section 6701 of the California Family Code, which treats certain contracts with minors, including those that delegate power, as void. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that OpenAI's method of obtaining parental consent is inadequate and that agreements children accepted are void from the outset, and they add a claim for unjust enrichment.
The requested remedy stands out. Besides declaratory relief, the plaintiffs want class members to receive a proportional stake in OpenAI, or the equivalent in cash, sized according to the value the company allegedly derived from their information. The complaint frames this as a chance for OpenAI to share the wealth its models create, echoing the company's own public statements about broad benefit.
OpenAI disputes the suit. In a statement reported by Bloomberg Law, the company called the case misguided, said it unfairly singles out OpenAI despite the age-specific protections built into ChatGPT, and warned it could push teenagers toward products with weaker safeguards and fewer parental controls. OpenAI introduced dedicated teen accounts with expanded parental controls this summer; the complaint argues those accounts still fall short and by default keep and train on what young users type.
The filing is at the earliest stage. No court has ruled on any allegation, the class has not been certified, and the equity remedy would be novel if granted. The case does join a broader wave of litigation over minors and consumer technology, including suits against social media platforms, and it raises a question every chatbot provider faces: whether a self-declared age box is enough consent when children pour personal data into AI systems.