Florida Seeks an Injunction on OpenAI Model Development and ChatGPT Access
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked a court to bar OpenAI from developing new models without outside oversight, to keep minors off ChatGPT, and to bar “human attributes” on the bot. It is a motion in the state’s June lawsuit, not an order. OpenAI says training of its most capable models is already paused.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked a court on September 28 for an injunction in the state’s June lawsuit against OpenAI, Reuters reported. The requested restrictions cover developing new models without outside oversight, minors’ access to ChatGPT, and giving the chatbot “human attributes.”
This article describes the state’s request as reported that day. It does not establish that a court granted it.
The allegations and response#
Reuters says Florida accused OpenAI of misrepresenting ChatGPT’s safety and harming children. The lawsuit followed a Tallahassee university shooting and other incidents the state associated with ChatGPT. These are allegations. OpenAI has disputed liability, pointing to information already available online and its continuing safety updates.
The motion cited comments by a former OpenAI employee and a current board member. They are separate people; the earlier version of this article incorrectly described one person who held both roles.
Spokesperson Drew Pusateri told Reuters that OpenAI had paused training its most capable models and would not resume until additional safeguards were in place. He said governments should establish safety standards and that the company would work with Florida and other states on policies covering the industry.
A company-announced training pause and a requested court restriction are different mechanisms. The reporting does not establish that they cover identical models or activities.
Limits#
The state’s linked motion PDF and announcement could not be accessed during this review. This account therefore relies on Reuters’ reporting, available in full through AOL. The precise proposed legal wording, oversight mechanism, and subsequent court disposition are not independently established here.
Correction (October 14, 2026): Corrected the reference to a former employee and a current board member, removed unsupported product-week comparisons, and disclosed that the motion itself was inaccessible. The headline no longer implies an independently verified court-status check.