OpenAI's chief executive apologised in April for not telling police about the account. The 30 complaints filed on 2 September allege something the apology did not cover: that the decision not to tell them was taken by the people who handle the company's image.

Teachers, students and a principal who were present at the shooting at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia in February filed 30 complaints in US federal court in California. They allege OpenAI knew from the suspect's ChatGPT conversations that an attack was being planned and made a conscious decision not to warn the RCMP. For the first time in this set of cases the complaints also allege aiding and abetting, which requires establishing intentional conduct rather than failure. They name chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane, alleging that staff responsible for public relations overrode a safety team recommendation to refer the account to the authorities. OpenAI disputes key claims.

Why this one is different

The AI lawsuits so far have been about copyright, or about products harming the people using them. This is a claim that a company held specific knowledge of a specific threat to specific people and said nothing, and the aiding and abetting count moves the case from what a company failed to do towards what it decided. OpenAI is now facing more than fifty consumer harm and wrongful death suits.

A filing is not a finding.

How we got here

1. Feb 2026The shooting at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia.
2. Mar 2026The first family sues OpenAI, alleging it could have warned police.
3. Apr 2026Sam Altman writes to the community apologising for the failure to alert the RCMP.
4. 2 Sep 2026Thirty more complaints add an aiding and abetting claim and name executives.
5. 2 Sep 2026On the same day, the US Justice Department files in support of OpenAI in the New York Times copyright case.

What it does and does not mean

These are allegations in a complaint and none has been tested. Aiding and abetting is a high bar precisely because it requires showing a decision rather than a lapse, the claim that public relations overrode safety comes from the plaintiffs rather than from any document that has been published, and OpenAI disputes key claims. A filing is not a finding, and the people who filed these are survivors rather than disinterested parties, which is not a criticism of them but is a fact about where the account comes from. What is already established is narrower: the company did not tell the police, and its chief executive apologised for that in April. What the case now turns on is not whether a warning would have worked, but whether somebody decided not to give one, and that has moved from a question of policy to a question a court will take evidence on.