JCCP 5431: ChatGPT Lawsuits Consolidated in California

By David Meldofsky, California-licensed attorney · Founder, Lawsuit Informer

Last updated: October 7, 2026

Families suing OpenAI in California state court are not each fighting alone in a separate courtroom. In February 2026, a San Francisco judge grouped their ChatGPT lawsuits so one judge handles everything the cases share. The group is called In re: ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431. This page explains what that means for each family's case, which cases are in the group, and what happens next. It is part of our coverage of OpenAI Lawsuits.

What Happened

Individual lawsuits against OpenAI accumulated in California state courts through late 2025. In November 2025, the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project filed seven related cases for families. They say OpenAI released its GPT-4o model despite internal warnings that it agreed with and flattered vulnerable users too readily. Other suits, filed separately, made similar claims about the product's design and its missing warnings.

Because the cases raised the same questions, a petition asked California's Judicial Council to coordinate them. On February 3, 2026, the San Francisco County Superior Court entered the coordination order creating In re: ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431.

Roughly a dozen wrongful death and product liability cases were grouped at that point, and the proceeding is built to absorb more. Plaintiffs’ counsel in Carrier v. OpenAI, filed June 11, 2026, have said that case is expected to join, and have described OpenAI as facing roughly nineteen wrongful death suits in total.

Some press releases and news stories give the number as "JCCP 5341." The court's order says JCCP No. 5431. Anyone searching court records under the wrong number will find nothing.

What the ChatGPT Lawsuits Claim

The ChatGPT lawsuits in this group were brought by families, and in a few cases by the injured person. In most of them someone died. The complaints say the person spent months in conversation with the chatbot, that those conversations turned to suicide or self-harm, and that the product kept engaging instead of stopping.

The argument running through all of them is that ChatGPT is a product. If a court accepts that, the ordinary rules for dangerous products apply, and the questions become whether a safer version was possible and whether users were warned. OpenAI disputes the allegations, and no court has decided the question.

What the families ask for is money for the death or the injury. Several also ask the court to order changes to how the product responds to a user in crisis. Each ChatGPT lawsuit stays its own case inside the coordination, so there is no group to sign up for and no settlement fund.

What a JCCP Is

A Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, or JCCP, is how California handles related cases filed in different courts. The cases go to one judge for everything before trial. That judge manages the exchange of evidence, hears the arguments the cases share, and rules once on the big legal questions. Without coordination, a dozen courtrooms could reach a dozen different answers.

It is the state-court version of a federal multidistrict litigation, and it is not a class action. Each lawsuit inside JCCP 5431 remains an individual case with its own plaintiffs, its own facts, and its own outcome. For how coordinated proceedings typically unfold, see how mass torts work.

Which ChatGPT Lawsuits Are Inside the Coordination

The grouped cases fall into two broad categories. The first is wrongful death by suicide: families alleging that ChatGPT engaged with a user's suicidal disclosures over extended periods without triggering protective measures. When the person has died, a family member or the estate brings the case. Our guide to filing a lawsuit for a family member explains who can do that.

Individual pages now cover two of those cases. Shamblin v. OpenAI was brought by the parents of a 23-year-old Texas man. Lacey v. OpenAI was brought by the father of a 17-year-old from Georgia.

The second category is psychological injury short of death. Brooks v. OpenAI, consolidated into the proceeding on February 3, 2026, was brought by a 48-year-old entrepreneur with no prior history of mental illness. He alleges that GPT-4o's design reinforced and escalated a delusional spiral that caused severe psychological and financial harm.

Raine v. OpenAI, the earliest and most prominent of the wrongful death cases, is inside the coordination as well. The court’s party list shows eight plaintiff cases, all under San Francisco case numbers.

• Raine (CGC-25-628528)
• Lacey (CGC-25-630808)
• Chesterton (CGC-26-634698)
• Arnstad (CGC-26-637159)
• A Jane Doe action (CGC-26-635725)
• Lantieri (CGC-26-634445)
• First County Bank, as executor of the Estate of Suzanne Adams (CGC-25-631477)
• A self-represented plaintiff’s case, coordinated in as an add-on on July 21, 2026 (CGC-26-636564)

The families are suing five separate OpenAI companies: OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI OpCo, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Group PBC, and the OpenAI Foundation. CEO Sam Altman is also named personally. Microsoft Corporation is also a named defendant and appears through its own counsel, separate from the team representing the OpenAI entities and Altman.

Several related cases sit outside the coordination. The Tumbler Ridge lawsuits and the FSU shooting case are federal cases and proceed separately in federal court. Florida v. OpenAI is a state civil enforcement action in Florida, on its own track.

Newer San Francisco filings, Carrier and Parish among them, have not yet appeared on the coordination party list. Winters v. OpenAI (CGC-26-639579) has not either. It was filed August 3, 2026, one day before Case Management Order No. 1 was entered.

Winters would be the first case in the group brought by a surviving plaintiff alleging physical injury rather than death or psychological harm.

Why the Coordination Matters

Coordination is the moment scattered filings become organized mass litigation. One judge now controls discovery into OpenAI's internal safety evaluations, model documentation, and design decisions.

That judge will also rule once on the three questions that decide whether these cases survive.

• Is ChatGPT a product, judged by the rules for dangerous products, or a service those rules do not cover?
• Does Section 230, a federal law that shields websites from liability for what users post, cover what an AI writes?
• Does the user's own act cut off the company's responsibility?

OpenAI's filings in the coordinated cases have reportedly characterized ChatGPT as a software-based service rather than a product. A federal court in Garcia v. Character Technologies allowed comparable product claims against a chatbot to proceed. The question is examined in Is AI Output a Product or Content?

The stakes run past the parties. The Carrier complaint asks the court to order OpenAI to build in safety guardrails by default. Rulings in this proceeding could therefore shape how consumer AI products are designed, not just what one company owes one family.

Who Leads the Families’ Side

On August 4, 2026, Judge Ethan P. Schulman put four law firms in charge of the work every case shares. They are the Social Media Victims Law Center, Edelson PC, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, and The Lanier Law Firm. Each family keeps its own lawyer for its own case. Each family alone decides whether to accept a settlement of its claims.

The same order protects people who are suing without a lawyer. They get the same filings and shared evidence as everyone else, and they can still file papers about their own case. Lawsuit Intelligencer looks closely at that protection in The Handwritten Line in the ChatGPT Leadership Order.

The First Schedule

On September 24, 2026, the day after a hearing, Judge Schulman entered Case Management Order No. 2. It sets the first deadlines for every case in the group.

The order opened discovery on September 23. Discovery is the stage where each side can demand records and testimony from the other. It did not open as to Microsoft, which is named in some of the cases.

• October 15, 2026. The lawyers propose ground rules for the cases. Those include a protective order for confidential records and rules for exchanging electronic records. They also include standard questionnaires for both sides, called fact sheets, and a plan for how OpenAI hands over ChatGPT user data.
• October 30, 2026. OpenAI and the other defendants respond to every complaint on file by September 23. OpenAI also hands over each plaintiff’s ChatGPT conversation history and account data.
• November 13, 2026. The next hearing, at 9:00 a.m. The parties file a joint statement at least five court days before it.
• November 16, 2026. The deadline for the people suing to amend their complaints.
• December 15, 2026. The plaintiffs and OpenAI serve their completed fact sheets.
• December 16, 2026. The defendants respond to the amended complaints.

The order puts each family’s ChatGPT history in their lawyers’ hands on October 30. That is more than two weeks before the deadline to amend the complaints.

The October 15 proposals must also include a plan to coordinate discovery with Lyons v. OpenAI, a federal case in San Francisco. It was brought by the estate of Stein-Erik Soelberg, who killed his mother, Suzanne Adams, at their Connecticut home before taking his own life. Her estate’s case, brought by First County Bank as executor, is one of the cases in this group. In April 2026 a federal judge refused OpenAI’s request to dismiss or pause Lyons while the state case goes forward.

What to Watch

The next hearing is a further case management conference on November 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 304. Earlier conferences were held July 24 and September 23, 2026.

Beyond that, three things are worth watching.

• Add-on petitions. Which of the newer filings, Carrier and Winters among them, are formally folded into the proceeding.
• OpenAI’s responses to the complaints, due October 30, 2026. That is where OpenAI can challenge the claims on the product-versus-service question and Section 230. The rulings on those challenges will echo through every AI liability case that follows, including the federal ones.
• Other state attorneys general. Whether any follow Florida's lead, a development tracked on States Suing AI Companies.

Winters is the one to watch closely. It would stretch the coordinated group past its wrongful death and psychological injury shape into non-fatal physical injury. The Social Media Victims Law Center, which holds one of the four co-lead seats here, is on its caption.

Winters also asks the court to order the GPT-4o model destroyed and all training data from consumer use deleted. That request would reach every case in the group, not just one plaintiff.

The Coordination Order

The order granting the petition for coordination is a public court record, and two copies of the same scanned order are online. One is hosted by the Tech Justice Law Project, which works for the families in these cases: Order re Petition for Coordination, JCCP No. 5431 (PDF). A second copy sits on the legal news site Reason: the same order (PDF). When a court document comes from one side’s own website, it is worth checking it against the second copy.

Why These Cases Are in California State Court

ChatGPT lawsuits in California are split across two court systems, and where a case lands depends mostly on where the people suing live.

The cases grouped here were brought by Californians against a California company. That combination keeps a case in state court, and it also means OpenAI cannot move these cases to federal court, which is an advantage for the people suing.

The Tumbler Ridge lawsuits went the other way because those families and survivors are Canadian. Someone from another country suing an American company can use federal court, so those cases are in federal court in San Francisco instead.

The claims differ too. The cases here were brought by people who used ChatGPT, or by their families. The Tumbler Ridge plaintiffs never used it, and their case is about what OpenAI knew about someone else.

The practical result is that the same core questions get decided twice, by two different judges, and the answers do not have to agree.

For a family whose own situation may belong here, the conversations are the record that matters most, and they can be deleted in a few taps. Our guide on what to do in the first days covers what to save and what disappears on its own.

How JCCP 5431 Fits With the Other ChatGPT Lawsuits

This proceeding is the procedural backbone of the state-court side of the OpenAI litigation. For the full landscape, start with the OpenAI Lawsuits hub.

The individual case pages cover Raine v. OpenAI, the Tumbler Ridge lawsuits, the FSU shooting case, and the Scott overdose case. The filed complaint and case guide for Winters v. OpenAI, the health-guidance case filed in the same court in August 2026, are hosted on Lawsuit Center.

Common Questions

Is JCCP 5431 a class action?

No. A coordination proceeding groups individual lawsuits before one judge for everything before trial. Each case keeps its own plaintiffs, its own facts, and its own outcome. No one is automatically included, and there is no shared settlement fund unless one is later negotiated.

Is a JCCP the same as an MDL?

It is the California state-court version. An MDL groups federal cases, and a JCCP groups California state cases. Both handle everything before trial together while leaving each case separate. See MDL Basics.

Which lawsuits are part of JCCP 5431?

Roughly a dozen wrongful death and product liability cases were grouped when the order was entered, including Brooks v. OpenAI. Newer filings such as Carrier v. OpenAI are expected to be added, and Winters v. OpenAI, filed in August 2026, is a candidate for an add-on petition. The group changes as add-on petitions are granted, so the court's own records, not press coverage, are the authoritative list.

Does coordination change what an individual family must prove?

No. Each family still has to prove the same things. What changes is how the case is handled before trial. One judge oversees it, evidence is exchanged once for everyone, and the big legal questions get one ruling.

What are the ChatGPT lawsuits about?

They are individual injury and wrongful death cases brought against OpenAI over sustained use of ChatGPT. Most involve a death by suicide after months of conversations. Others involve a fatal overdose, an act of violence, or a mental health crisis the person survived. The shared argument is that ChatGPT is a product and should be judged by the rules that apply to products.

How many ChatGPT lawsuits are in JCCP 5431?

Roughly a dozen were grouped when the coordination order was entered in February 2026, and the court's party list has since shown eight named plaintiff cases plus add-ons. Plaintiffs' counsel have described OpenAI as facing about nineteen wrongful death suits in total, most but not all of them inside this proceeding.

Sources

• Order re Petition for Coordination, JCCP No. 5431 (Tech Justice Law Project copy) — the signed order that created the proceeding, listing the coordinated cases by name and case number.
• The same order, hosted by Reason — a second copy from a source outside the cases, so readers can check one against the other.
• Hunton Andrews Kurth, note on the coordination of the OpenAI product liability actions — a defense-side law firm’s account of the order and of what the complaints allege.

Figures and dates above should be confirmed against the original sources.

Related Coverage

About the Author

David Meldofsky is a California-licensed attorney and the founder of Lawsuit Informer, an educational platform focused on helping people understand lawsuits, consumer safety issues, and legal rights related to defective products and toxic exposures.

Learn more about our Editorial Policy or Contact us.

Last Updated: October 7, 2026

This page explains a public court proceeding for educational reference. It is not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed.