“OpenAI Says ChatGPT Misuse Is Users’ Responsibility – Law360”

There have been some novel lawsuits arising out of artificial intelligence.  See Microsoft Sued for Alleged Torts Arising From CoPilot Output (May 6, 2026).

Nippon Life Ins. Co. of America v. OpenAI Foundation, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02448 (N.D. Ill.), poses the question of Does OpenAI Provide Legal Assistance? (Mar. 11, 2026).  Nippon contends that ChatGPT made certain costly litigation by a pro se litigant (Dela Torre) possible and that ChatGPT was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

A recent article by Emily Sawicki,  OpenAI Says ChatGPT Misuse Is Users’ Responsibility – Law360 (May 20, 2026), provides an update on that case.  “OpenAI has asked a federal judge in Chicago to end an insurance company’s suit alleging it practices law without a license, arguing the complaint should be directed toward individuals who misuse the company’s ChatGPT bot to file faulty motions, and not the generative AI platform itself.”  Id.

The article states that OpenAI has moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing the lack of standing to assert the unlicensed practice of law claim because “Nippon is neither an attorney nor an attorney licensed in Illinois….”  Ms. Sawicki reports that OpenAI argues that Nippon “is an aggrieved litigant improperly seeking redress for its pro se adversary’s alleged misconduct in collateral litigation. It has no standing.”

In response to tort claims such as tortious interference:

OpenAI said, all users including Dela Torre had agreed not to use ChatGPT output “as a substitute for professional advice” when they signed the platform’s user agreement. Under that agreement, Dela Torre also agreed to not use or share the bot’s output without evaluating its accuracy, and agreed to take responsibility for what she did decide to use, the company said.

Id. OpenAI squarely asserts that any alleged responsibility was with the user, not OpenAI:

“Dela Torre was entitled to represent herself against Nippon and was entitled to use ChatGPT as a tool to do so,” OpenAI argued. “Whether she made appropriate arguments is a question of her actions, and was for the district court judge presiding over her cases to decide.”

Id.  Some of the other arguments presented by OpenAI include Illinois tort issues and an asserted “litigation privilege.”  Further, “[a]s for its claim that OpenAI aided and abetted abuse of process, the tech company told the court that Nippon had not shown that Dela Torre abused process in her underlying motions, therefore the claim must fail on its merits.”  Id.

This post is based on Ms. Sawicki’s article.  Nippon has not yet responded to OpenAI’s motion.