Florida's attorney general has asked a state court to block OpenAI from developing new AI models without independent safety reviews and from offering ChatGPT to minors in the state. The request, a motion for a temporary injunction filed on September 28, 2026, is part of a broader lawsuit that Florida brought against OpenAI and Sam Altman in June. It is among the most aggressive state actions so far against a frontier AI developer, and as of now it remains pending.
What Florida Filed
The motion was filed in the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit in Highlands County. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked the court to grant a temporary injunction while the underlying case proceeds. The filing is a request, not a ruling, and the court has not yet granted any relief.
Coverage describes the motion as 38 pages long. Its requests are broad. It would bar OpenAI from developing new models without independent third-party safety reviews and approval. It would bar ChatGPT from being offered to minors in Florida. It would also limit the collection of data from children under 13 unless OpenAI meets federal and state parental-consent rules, and bar the company from calling ChatGPT safe, reliable or accurate without warning that it can be unsafe or wrong.
The motion also asks the court to stop ChatGPT from presenting itself as having human traits, emotions or independent thinking, and to stop features that prolong conversations to drive engagement.
The State's Case
Florida argues that OpenAI violated the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by overstating ChatGPT's capabilities and reliability. The motion characterizes engagement-focused features as manipulative "dark patterns" that benefit the company at users' expense. It also argues that the company failed to protect children and that its products create a public nuisance.
The filing cites a series of security incidents as evidence. These include the Hugging Face breach, an attack on the RubyGems coding service, attempted hacks of U.S. government websites, and an agent's access to Australia's Medicare statistics portal. It also cites examples of ChatGPT giving dangerous or inaccurate advice on topics such as weapons, drugs, health and suicide.
The attorney general's public message was blunt. In a video on X, Uthmeier said, "Stop calling it safe. Stop pretending it's human. Stop selling it to kids." The motion also argues that the defendants have publicly called for government oversight, saying they "have asked the government to tie them to the mast." These are the state's arguments and evidence. They are not findings by the court.
OpenAI's Response
OpenAI has said it wants to work with Florida and other states on industry-wide rules, and that those rules should not single out one company. A spokesperson told Politico that "people want to know AI is being developed safely, and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves." Reporting also says OpenAI has paused training of its most capable models until it has more safeguards in place. That account comes from the reporting, not from a court filing.
Where the Case Stands
The case has moved between courts. OpenAI removed it to federal court, but a federal judge rejected the jurisdictional arguments and sent it back to Highlands County. Reporting on the motion found no hearing date, no response from the defendants on the record, and no deadline for opposing the motion. As of the latest coverage, no injunction had been granted.
Because the most recent detailed reporting is from the time of filing, readers should check the Highlands County docket for any scheduling or ruling since then.
Why It Matters
The Florida motion matters for three reasons. First, it asks for something most state laws have not required: government approval before a developer builds a new model. Second, it targets access by minors directly, an area where state lawmakers have been active this year. Third, it relies on consumer protection law rather than AI-specific statutes, which means the arguments could apply to other chatbot makers.
Even if the court does not grant the full request, the filing signals how state attorneys general may test AI safety claims in court. Companies that market AI systems as safe or human-like will face closer scrutiny of those statements. For parents, schools and developers, the case is an early test of whether the courts, rather than Congress, will set the first limits on how frontier models reach young users.
