OpenAI Accused of Using Children's ChatGPT Data to Train AI, Family Demands Company Shares

OpenAI is facing a proposed nationwide class action accusing the company of using children's private ChatGPT conversations to train artificial intelligence models without valid parental consent. A Hawaii family behind the lawsuit is demanding company shares or their cash equivalent, arguing that children's personal information helped build the technology driving OpenAI's growth.

Filed October 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the 81-page complaint alleges that ChatGPT was designed to draw sensitive information from children through personalized conversations. OpenAI then allegedly used that information under agreements the children lacked the legal authority to accept.

A Hawaii mother identified as Jane Doe brought the case on behalf of her 12-year-old daughter and 16-year-old son, seeking to represent other children who used ChatGPT. The defendants include OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI OpCo, OpenAI Holdings and OpenAI Group PBC.

At the center of the dispute is OpenAI's registration process, which allegedly allows children to create accounts by providing basic information, indicating they are at least 13 and clicking a button to continue. Although the company's terms require parental permission for users under 18, the family argues that allowing children to confirm their own eligibility does not establish legally valid parental consent.

California law places restrictions on the contracts minors can enter and the legal authority they can grant to companies. The case cites Civil Code Section 1568.5 and Family Code Section 6701 in challenging whether children can authorize the use of their personal information simply by accepting OpenAI's terms. The family also seeks to invalidate the agreements' arbitration provisions, which generally require covered disputes to be handled outside court.

The family's claims go beyond parental consent, arguing that OpenAI also owes children compensation for the economic value allegedly generated from their information.

The allegations extend beyond the account registration process to how ChatGPT interacts with young users. Conversational memory, personalized responses, flattery and follow-up questions allegedly encourage children to disclose increasingly sensitive information. The filing also describes the chatbot mirroring users' language, including slang and emojis, to create a sense of familiarity and trust.

Those practices are illustrated through the experiences of Jane Doe's children, both of whom used ChatGPT in early 2026. Her daughter was 12 when she created an account and repeatedly disclosed her age during conversations, yet ChatGPT continued engaging with her despite the company's minimum age requirement of 13.

The girl's exchanges included photographs of herself and discussions about her appearance, body image, eating habits, family relationships and personal insecurities. ChatGPT allegedly responded with encouragement and follow-up questions that prompted additional disclosures about sensitive subjects.

Her older brother, 16, initially used ChatGPT for schoolwork. According to the filing, his conversations also generated personal information that the company allegedly collected for purposes that included improving its AI models and developing profiles of users' interests and behavior.

OpenAI introduced parental controls in September 2025 and launched ChatGPT for Teens in August 2026, adding protections intended to provide younger users with a more age-appropriate experience. Its parental-control settings allow adults with linked teen accounts to prevent future conversations from being used to improve AI models, although the training option is enabled by default.

The company says it offers users controls over model training and takes steps to reduce personal information in training datasets. The availability of those settings also bears on the family's allegation that OpenAI collected children's information without legally valid authorization when they registered.

The demand for a share of OpenAI rests on two legal theories concerning the value the company allegedly gained from children's private conversations. Under a claim of unjust enrichment, the family argues that OpenAI benefited financially from information obtained without valid consent and should return the value derived from its use.

The complaint also invokes accession, a California property-law doctrine addressing ownership and compensation when property is transformed into something more valuable. Here, the family argues that children's personal information contributed to the development of OpenAI's models and that young users are entitled to a proportional share of the resulting value.

The requested compensation includes OpenAI equity or its cash equivalent, along with restitution, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The court will have to determine whether the asserted legal theories support such recovery, including whether the property-based claim applies to information used in AI training.

The case, filed as Jane Doe v. OpenAI Foundation, seeks to represent children nationwide who accepted ChatGPT's terms while under 18 and supplied information through the service. A federal judge has yet to decide whether the proposed class can proceed collectively.