States Suing AI Companies
Last updated: June 6, 2026
Alongside the private lawsuits filed by individuals and families, a growing number of state attorneys general and local governments have taken direct action against AI companies. This page is a running tracker of who has acted, against which company, on what date, and on what legal basis. Because this area moves quickly, it is updated as new actions are reported.
This is a general, educational tracker — not a complete or official docket. Government enforcement actions are separate from private claims. If you were personally harmed, see the linked pages for how individual claims work.
At a Glance
As of the last update, reported U.S. government action includes:
- Florida v. OpenAI — state lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, filed June 1, 2026. Reported as the first state suit against the company.
- Kentucky v. Character Technologies — state lawsuit against Character.AI, filed January 8, 2026. Reported as the first state suit against an AI chatbot company.
- Pennsylvania v. Character Technologies — state lawsuit announced in May 2026 over a chatbot that posed as a licensed psychiatrist. Reported as the first U.S. action focused on a chatbot impersonating a medical professional.
- Texas investigation — the Texas Attorney General issued civil investigative demands to Character.AI and Meta in 2025.
- California v. xAI — investigation opened and a cease-and-desist letter issued to xAI over Grok in January 2026.
- City of Baltimore v. X / xAI — municipal consumer-protection lawsuit filed March 24, 2026. Among the first by a U.S. city.
- 35-state coalition letter — a bipartisan group of 35 attorneys general wrote to xAI in January 2026.
Why States Are Acting
With no comprehensive federal AI statute in place, much of the legal pressure on AI companies has come from the states. State attorneys general have reached for existing tools — consumer-protection statutes, deceptive-trade-practice laws, child-safety authority, data-privacy laws, and even medical-licensing rules — to address conduct those laws' drafters never specifically anticipated. The result is a patchwork of state and local enforcement rather than a single national approach. The sections below group the actions by the company involved.
OpenAI — Florida
On June 1, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed suit in Florida state court against OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman. Reported as the first state lawsuit against the company, the complaint alleges OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as safe and reliable — including for children — while failing to warn users of serious risks, and that it lacked effective age verification and parental controls. The suit raises consumer-protection and product-related theories and seeks damages and court-ordered changes to how ChatGPT interacts with minors. Altman is named personally.
The civil suit followed a criminal investigation Uthmeier announced in April 2026 into whether the company bore responsibility in connection with a 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University, after prosecutors reviewed chat logs attributed to the alleged shooter.
For the broader OpenAI litigation, including the private wrongful-death cases, see OpenAI Lawsuits.
Character.AI — Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas
Character.AI has drawn action from more than one state, on two distinct theories.
Kentucky (January 2026)
On January 8, 2026, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman filed suit against Character Technologies in Franklin Circuit Court — announced as the first state lawsuit in the nation against an AI chatbot company. The complaint alleges the platform's chatbots preyed on children and led them toward self-harm, and that the company violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, and other laws. The state seeks to force changes to the platform's practices and to recover penalties.
Pennsylvania (May 2026)
In May 2026, Pennsylvania — through Governor Josh Shapiro's administration and the state Board of Medicine — sued Character.AI on a narrower theory: that one of its chatbots unlawfully held itself out as a licensed medical professional. According to the filing, a chatbot named "Emilie" presented itself to a state investigator as a licensed psychiatrist and, when pressed, supplied a fabricated Pennsylvania medical-license number. The state alleges this violates its Medical Practice Act, in what reporting describes as the first U.S. enforcement action focused specifically on chatbots impersonating medical professionals.
Texas (investigation, 2025)
Separately, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued civil investigative demands to Character.AI and Meta, examining whether their chatbots deceived users — particularly children — by presenting themselves as mental-health or therapeutic tools without proper credentials. This is an investigation rather than a filed lawsuit.
For more detail on these matters and the related private cases, see Character.AI Lawsuits.
Grok / xAI — California and Baltimore
Government scrutiny of xAI's Grok tool has centered on its generation of nonconsensual sexualized images of real people.
California (January 2026)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta opened an investigation into xAI in mid-January 2026 and, on January 16, 2026, issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding the company stop the creation and distribution of nonconsensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material. Bonta's office tied the demand to California's public-decency laws and a state deepfake law that had taken effect at the start of the year. The action is among the first to test these newer state statutes against a generative-AI developer.
City of Baltimore (March 2026)
On March 24, 2026, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued X Corp., xAI, and related entities in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging violations of the city's Consumer Protection Ordinance. The complaint contends the companies marketed Grok as a safe, general-purpose assistant while failing to disclose its capacity to generate explicit deepfake content. Baltimore is among the first U.S. municipalities to act, using local consumer-protection authority; it seeks injunctive relief and statutory penalties.
For more detail and the related private cases, see Grok and xAI Lawsuits and the related TAKE IT DOWN Act explainer.
Multistate and Coalition Action
Beyond individual states, attorneys general have acted in coordinated groups:
- 35-state letter to xAI (January 2026) — a bipartisan group of 35 state and territory attorneys general wrote to xAI, urging additional steps to protect the public, and women and girls in particular, from nonconsensual sexualized images.
- Letter to leading AI companies (September 2025) — California's attorney general and 44 others wrote to roughly a dozen major AI companies about child-safety concerns following reports of inappropriate chatbot interactions with minors.
- Earlier coalition letters — groups of attorneys general have also written to search engines and to online payment platforms, urging stronger measures against the spread of and payment for deepfake content.
Coalition letters of this kind often signal coordinated interest and can precede further action. Reporting has also described a large volume of chatbot-specific safety bills introduced across many state legislatures, so legislative activity is running alongside enforcement.
Action Outside the United States
The concerns are not limited to the U.S. In connection with Grok's image generation, regulators in several countries opened investigations or imposed restrictions in early 2026, and a court in the Netherlands ordered the tool barred from producing nonconsensual nude images. These foreign actions do not control U.S. cases, but they illustrate how widely the same conduct has drawn official attention.
Enforcement Actions vs. Private Claims
It is worth being clear about the difference between the two kinds of legal action:
- Government enforcement actions are brought by a state attorney general, a city, or another authority. They typically seek to change company conduct, stop a practice, or impose civil penalties. Individuals do not enroll in them.
- Private claims are brought by individuals or families who allege they were personally harmed, and typically seek compensation. These follow a different path and depend on the specific facts and the applicable law.
Both can arise from the same underlying conduct. If you were personally affected, a private claim may be possible regardless of whether a government action exists.
Were you or a family member personally harmed in connection with an AI product? A government action is not the same as your own claim. A free, no-obligation case review can help clarify whether your situation may support one.
See If Your Situation May QualifyWhat to Watch Next
Expect this area to keep developing. More state attorneys general may file suit; the novel medical-licensing and consumer-protection theories will be tested as courts rule on early motions; the multistate coalitions may take further steps; and state legislatures may pass AI-specific laws that change the landscape. Watch in particular whether other states follow Florida against OpenAI, whether Pennsylvania's professional-impersonation theory is adopted elsewhere, and whether additional cities follow Baltimore's consumer-protection approach against xAI. This page is updated as those develop.
Common Questions
Which states have taken action?
Reported examples include Florida's suit against OpenAI and Sam Altman; Kentucky's and Pennsylvania's suits against Character.AI (with a Texas investigation into Character.AI and Meta); California's investigation and cease-and-desist to xAI over Grok; and a City of Baltimore consumer-protection suit against X and xAI. A bipartisan group of 35 attorneys general also wrote to xAI in January 2026.
Are these the same as private lawsuits?
No. These are government enforcement actions, separate from private claims by individuals or families, though both can arise from the same conduct.
Can I join a state's action?
Generally no — government actions are not something individuals enroll in. If you were personally harmed, a separate private claim may be possible. A case review can help clarify.
Explore Related AI Lawsuit Topics
Lawsuit Informer provides general educational information. If you want to move beyond research and find out whether your situation may support a claim, continue to Lawsuit Center for a free case review.
Related AI Lawsuit Pages
