Florida's public nuisance lawsuit against OpenAI puts AI data practices on trial

Florida's civil enforcement action against OpenAI and Sam Altman is the first state lawsuit to argue that an AI chatbot is a public nuisance. The 83-page complaint, filed June 1 in Highlands County circuit court, alleges ChatGPT collects data from children under 13 without parental notice or consent, and seeks a permanent injunction and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation Tom's Hardware. For AI builders, this case signals that state attorneys general are ready to apply consumer protection and public nuisance theories to AI products, especially around child data practices.

What the complaint alleges

The ten-count complaint includes negligence, gross negligence, strict liability for design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, and public nuisance Tom's Hardware. Florida specifically alleges that ChatGPT's memory feature was on by default, the free tier has no age gate, and the September 2025 parental controls require a voluntary account link. The state also claims that GPT-4o's safety evaluation was compressed to one week to beat a Google launch. These details matter because they frame the product design decisions as actionable under state law.

The jurisdictional fight

OpenAI removed the case to federal court on July 2, arguing that Count IV, which invokes the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) through Florida's deceptive trade practices law, creates a federal question Tom's Hardware. Florida moved to remand on July 10, calling the removal "preposterous" and seeking fees for delay. The case now sits before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who has not ruled on the remand motion for seven weeks. OpenAI's brief cites three similar cases where state lawsuits against platforms were removed and then remanded, but argues that removal was not "objectively unreasonable" in those cases. Florida insists the removal is purely for delay.

Why this matters for AI builders

The core question is whether COPPA-based claims can keep a state lawsuit in federal court. If the case is remanded to state court, Florida gets a jury trial on its public nuisance theory. That outcome could set a precedent for how state attorneys general regulate AI data practices. The New Mexico case against Meta, which resulted in a $567 million public nuisance abatement order and a $375 million jury penalty, shows the potential scale Tom's Hardware. Florida is seeking double New Mexico's per-violation cap.

For builders shipping AI products, the practical takeaway is that default settings, age gates, and parental controls are now regulatory risk vectors. The complaint specifically calls out the memory feature being on by default and the lack of an age gate on the free tier. If you're building a consumer-facing AI product, especially one that could be used by minors, you should review your data collection defaults and consent flows. The case also highlights that safety evaluation timelines can become evidence in litigation.

What remains uncertain

The case is still in its early stages. No ruling has been made on the remand motion, and the personal jurisdiction defense against Sam Altman as an individual defendant has not been litigated Tom's Hardware. A coalition of 42 state attorneys general subpoenaed OpenAI in June, but none has filed a complaint yet. The public nuisance theory is novel for AI, and its success is far from guaranteed. Builders should watch the remand ruling as a signal of how courts view the intersection of state consumer protection law and federal privacy statutes.