Florida AG Asks Court to Stop ChatGPT From Using Human-Like Language and Selling to Kids
Florida AG James Uthmeier’s 2026 motion seeks court-mandated, third-party-approved safety guardrails for OpenAI’s future models, citing security incidents and researchers’ concerns. He argues first-person, emotion-mimicking language makes ChatGPT seem like a trustworthy friend.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a motion in 2026 asking a judge to block OpenAI from “giving ChatGPT false human attributes,” escalating a lawsuit the state brought against the AI company earlier in the year over safety concerns.
Uthmeier argues that ChatGPT’s use of first-person pronouns and emotion-mimicking language deceives users into treating the chatbot as a trustworthy friend. He claims this design choice drives engagement and feeds OpenAI’s training data, making users more reliant on the tool even as that pursuit of engagement may make it less trustworthy.
The filing also asks the court to require OpenAI to develop new AI models only with “third-party approved safety guardrails.” Uthmeier cited recent security incidents at Hugging Face, an Australian government website, and US government websites, as well as concerns raised by researchers and former OpenAI employees. His position, stated plainly: “Stop calling it safe. Stop pretending it’s human. Stop selling it to kids.”
The children’s angle is particularly pointed. OpenAI launched ChatGPT for Teens last month, a product the company said includes default restrictions designed to “reinforce real-world relationships, and support healthy use over time.” Florida’s action suggests those measures fall short of what the state considers adequate protection.
OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri responded to the filing, noting that the company had paused training on its most capable models and would resume only after additional safeguards were in place. Pusateri added that OpenAI is “committed to working with Florida and other states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry — not just one company.”
The case could set a precedent for how states regulate AI personality design and child-facing AI products, though the outcome depends on the court’s ruling on the injunction request.