Gourley v. OpenAI
A student was shot at Florida State University. She had never used ChatGPT. Her lawsuit says the man who shot her had been talking to it for a year, and that it helped him.
Educational information only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed. Everything below comes from the complaint. These are allegations. Nothing has been proven, no court has ruled on any of it, and the man who carried out the shooting has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges and is presumed innocent of them.
If you or someone you know is struggling, call or text 988 in the United States to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, available 24 hours a day. You can also text HOME to 741741. In an emergency, call 911.
How it happened.
- Spring 2024 — OpenAI launches GPT-4o. The complaint says the safety review was cut to one week to beat a competitor's event by a day.
- 2024 into 2025 — A Florida State student talks to ChatGPT constantly. Loneliness, rejection, depression, being bullied.
- Over that year — The product's memory feature keeps all of it and carries it forward from one conversation to the next.
- March 2025 — The conversations turn to past school shootings.
- April 17, 2025, morning — He sits in a campus parking garage and keeps asking questions.
- 11:57 a.m. — Minutes after he closes the app, he walks to the Student Union and opens fire.
- That afternoon — Two people are dead. Reese Gourley, a student inside, has been chased down and shot.
- May 10, 2026 — The family of one of the men killed sues OpenAI. The first FSU case.
- August 26, 2026 — Gourley files her own suit in the same courthouse.
The story.
Reese Gourley was a student at Florida State. She is from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. On April 17, 2025 she was at the Student Union when a man walked up to the building and started shooting.
He came inside. Her complaint says he chased her down and shot her. She survived with injuries her filing describes as life-threatening, and at least one of them is permanent.
She is not suing him. She is suing the company that made the chatbot he had been talking to.
The complaint does not print his name anywhere. It calls him the Shooter and says in its first paragraph that he will not be named. That is a deliberate choice, and the reason for it sits inside the case itself: the filing alleges he asked ChatGPT how many people a shooting needs to kill before it becomes national news, and that the chatbot answered him.
What the complaint describes is not a single bad answer. It is a year. It says he used ChatGPT as the place he put his most private thoughts, and that it responded warmly, agreed with him, and kept a record. It helped him with homework and workouts and relationship advice. It offered to pray for him.
It also says that over the same year he told it he was lonely, that he had been rejected, that he had been bullied, that he was depressed. He asked it about suicide repeatedly and, according to the filing, it usually answered with statistics instead of pointing him anywhere for help. In the month before the attack the conversations moved to past school shootings.
The morning of the shooting he was in a parking garage on campus, still asking questions. He asked what would happen if there were a mass shooting at FSU. The complaint says the chatbot described how it would unfold, and did not stop the conversation or flag it to anyone.
He logged off. Minutes later he started shooting.
It kept everything and did nothing with it.
The strongest part of the complaint is not about any one message. It is about memory.
ChatGPT has a feature that remembers things across conversations, on by default, built so the product feels more personal the longer you use it. The complaint's argument is that the same feature that made it feel like a friend also made it the only thing in his life holding the complete picture.
Taken one at a time, the filing says, each disclosure was a recognized warning sign. Taken together, stored for a year by a system designed to know its users better than any person could, they added up to a profile of someone getting worse. The complaint says the system held that profile and never acted on it. It did not flag him. It did not restrict his account. It did not tell anyone.
The filing also alleges that OpenAI already knew how to build the stop. It says the company maintained firm refusals for copyright-protected material the whole time, which shows a hard block was technically possible, and chose not to build the equivalent for questions about weapons or crowds.
What the lawsuit says.
Gourley is suing eleven OpenAI companies. Notably, she is not suing Sam Altman, who the complaint names as a non-party. Other ChatGPT lawsuits do sue him.
The complaint runs 71 pages and brings nine separate legal claims. Most are what you would expect in an injury case: negligence, gross negligence, negligent design, product liability for a defective design, product liability for failing to warn, negligent failure to warn.
Three go further.
Negligent entrustment. The argument that OpenAI could have suspended or restricted his account, knew or should have known he was dangerous, and let him keep using the product anyway.
Negligent undertaking. This one uses OpenAI's own promises against it. The company built its identity on a mission to make AI safe for humanity, and it voluntarily monitors conversations and decides which ones to escalate to authorities. The complaint says that once you take on that job publicly, you have to do it with reasonable care.
Aiding and abetting. This is the one no other ChatGPT lawsuit has brought.
The complaint also spends several pages on why the usual defenses should not work here. It argues Section 230, the law that shields websites from liability for what users post, does not apply because this is not about hosting someone else's words. And it argues ChatGPT's output is not speech at all, walking through how the model predicts one word after another to conclude that what comes out is a statistical calculation rather than an idea.
The count nobody else has brought.
Every other AI chatbot lawsuit says the company was careless. This one says the company helped.
Aiding and abetting is a different kind of claim. To win it, you generally have to show the defendant knew what was coming and gave real assistance anyway. The complaint pleads exactly that: that OpenAI had actual knowledge of his intent from the content of his chats, or was willfully blind to it, and that the product gave him substantial assistance.
Then it goes one step further than the other cases and says he could not have done it without that help.
That is a hard thing to prove and it will draw the sharpest response from OpenAI's lawyers. But if a judge lets it move forward even to the evidence-gathering stage, it changes what these cases are worth, because a company accused of helping is in a different position than a company accused of being sloppy.
She was not their customer.
This is what makes the case matter beyond the people in it.
Almost every AI chatbot lawsuit so far has been brought by the user, or by the family of a user who died. Gourley was a student inside the Student Union who was chased down and shot. She is not alleged to have ever opened ChatGPT, and she never agreed to anything OpenAI put in front of its users.
Her complaint has to establish that a software company owes a duty to someone who never touched its product. The legal term it uses is foreseeable bystander, which in product cases means a person hurt by something they never bought, like a pedestrian hit by a car with bad brakes. The argument is that when you build something used by hundreds of millions of people and it can be talked into helping with violence, the people who get hurt are not only the ones typing.
If that argument works, it opens the door for anyone injured by someone else's use of an AI product. If it fails, these cases stay limited to users and their families.
What it says about the other shooting.
One allegation in the complaint reaches outside this case entirely.
In the section asking for punitive damages, the filing says that in the summer after the FSU shooting, an OpenAI team met to review other users who were discussing mass violence. It says they found about ten. It says senior people decided not to report most of them to law enforcement, choosing user privacy over telling anyone.
And it says one of those people went on to commit the Tumbler Ridge school shooting in Canada, which is now the subject of seven separate federal lawsuits in California.
The complaint is upfront that this meeting happened after Gourley was hurt, so it is not offered to prove her injuries. It is offered to show what the company was thinking. If it turns out to be accurate, it links two sets of cases that have been proceeding separately.
Who this may affect.
This is the first AI case brought by someone who was injured without ever using the product. Not the person who was typing. The person the typing led to.
If you were physically injured by someone else's actions, and there is reason to think an AI product played a role in what they did, that is the pattern this case is built on. The same goes if you were the user and were hurt.
It does not mean you have a claim. It means the question is worth asking, and there is now a filed complaint arguing the duty exists.
Common questions.
What is this lawsuit about?
Reese Gourley was a Florida State University student who was shot and critically injured during the April 17, 2025 mass shooting on campus. She sued eleven OpenAI companies in federal court in Tallahassee on August 26, 2026, alleging that ChatGPT assisted the man who carried out the attack over a year of conversations and never escalated, restricted his access, or alerted anyone.
Can I join this lawsuit?
No. This is one person's case, not a class action, so there is nothing to join and no claims process. But it reflects a type of claim other people may be able to bring on their own. Whether your situation supports one depends on your facts, your state, and your deadline. A licensed attorney has to answer that.
Is there a settlement or payout?
No. The case was filed in August 2026 and OpenAI has not responded. No court has ruled on anything. There is no settlement, no fund, and no compensation program tied to this case. Anyone telling you otherwise is not describing this lawsuit.
Is this the same as the other FSU lawsuit?
No, and it is worth keeping them straight. The first case was filed in May 2026 by the family of Tiru Chabba, one of the two men killed. That one is a wrongful death case brought by an estate. Gourley is a survivor who was injured, so it is a personal injury case, and it brings nine claims to the earlier case's eight. Both are in the same federal courthouse in Tallahassee. A third suit by another survivor is pending in state court in Leon County.
How long do I have to file a claim?
Deadlines vary by state and are often shorter than people expect. Some start when you were hurt, others when you found out what caused it. Because the deadline can quietly run out, this is worth asking sooner rather than later.
Where can I read the actual filing?
The full complaint is posted above as a PDF, straight from the court file. It runs 71 pages. The case number is 4:26-cv-00416-RH-MAF in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division.
Request a case review.
If you were injured in an incident where an AI chatbot may have played a role, whether you used it yourself or not, you can request a free, confidential case review. Reviews are handled by participating legal professionals and intake partners. There is no cost and no obligation, and submitting a request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Continue exploring this category.
Winters v. OpenAI
The ChatGPT medical-advice case, with that complaint posted in full as well.
OpenAI Case Review
Case review specific to claims involving OpenAI and ChatGPT.
AI Chatbot Case Review
Case review options for harms involving AI chatbots and companion apps.
The First FSU Case, Explained
Attorney analysis of the Chabba wrongful death complaint, on Lawsuit Informer.
Every OpenAI Case, Tracked
Status and background on all the pending OpenAI lawsuits, on Lawsuit Informer.
Browse All Lawsuits
Every litigation category tracked on Lawsuit Center.
Some pages on Lawsuit Center include sponsored law firm listings or other attorney advertising. Paid visibility is not a recommendation or endorsement, and visitors should evaluate any attorney independently before hiring counsel. See our Advertising Disclosure, or information for law firms.