OpenAI sued after ChatGPT allegedly advised man to stay home before fatal clot
Scott Winters sued OpenAI and Sam Altman in San Francisco, alleging ChatGPT advised him to stay home, delaying treatment for a massive pulmonary embolism. The case follows other safety lawsuits against OpenAI and occurs amid high AI health query volumes, with 40 million daily questions reported by the company.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Scott Winters has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging that ChatGPT’s advice to remain inactive directly contributed to a life-threatening pulmonary embolism. The case highlights growing legal risks for AI companies as chatbots increasingly serve as primary sources of health information for millions of users, with OpenAI reporting approximately 40 million daily health-related queries. Winters claims the AI model assessed his dizziness and groin tenderness with clinical confidence despite lacking medical qualifications, advising him to limit movement and stay home while dismissing the pain as unlikely to be dangerous.
The incident occurred in July 2025, when Winters was hospitalized the day after consulting the chatbot. According to the complaint, doctors linked his "massive pulmonary embolism" to the immobility recommended by the AI. Attorney Matthew Bergman stated that Winters nearly died because ChatGPT acted as a medical authority without assuming corresponding responsibility. The lawsuit seeks damages, the implementation of emergency guardrails, and an independent safety audit of ChatGPT Health, which OpenAI launched in January to help users interpret records and prepare for appointments.
Legal and Regulatory Context
The filing represents one of several recent legal challenges targeting OpenAI over safety concerns. It follows a separate Florida action alleging that ChatGPT endangered users and a May lawsuit claiming the platform’s advice contributed to a fatal overdose. These cases emerge as regulatory scrutiny intensifies around medical AI applications. A Nature Medicine study published in February this year found that AI did not help patients make better medical decisions than standard internet searches, raising questions about the efficacy and safety of relying on large language models for health guidance.
Company Response and Market Data
OpenAI maintains that its tools are designed to support, not replace, professional medical care. Spokesperson Drew Pusateri told CBS News that blaming chatbots alone oversimplifies medical decisions and could hinder access to useful tools. The company emphasizes that ChatGPT is not a doctor and should never be used as a substitute for diagnosis or treatment. Despite these disclaimers, market data indicates significant user reliance on AI for health queries. A West Health-Gallup survey found that 25% of U.S. adults had used AI for health information or advice, underscoring the widespread adoption that precedes this litigation.
What the Numbers Show
The disparity between user adoption and clinical validation presents a material risk for OpenAI. With 40 million daily health questions directed at ChatGPT, the potential for harm scales with usage volume. The following table outlines key metrics regarding AI health usage and safety concerns cited in the report:
| Metric | Value | Source/Context |
|---|---|---|
| Daily Health Queries | 40 million | OpenAI statement |
| U.S. Adults Using AI for Health | 25% | West Health-Gallup survey |
| Clinical Decision Improvement | None | Nature Medicine study (Feb) |
| Risk Factor Identified | Limited movement | CDC guidelines |
The core conflict lies in the gap between the volume of interactions and the absence of proven clinical benefit. While OpenAI argues its tools aid in interpreting records, the Nature Medicine study suggests no improvement over traditional search methods. This divergence implies that as usage grows, so does the exposure to liability from incorrect or delayed diagnoses, particularly when users substitute professional care with AI-generated advice.
How might the outcome of this lawsuit influence OpenAI's insurance premiums and overall cost structure for liability coverage?
Will regulatory bodies like the FDA or FTC move to classify health-focused AI outputs as medical devices, thereby imposing stricter pre-market validation requirements?
Could this litigation trigger a wave of class-action lawsuits from other users who relied on AI for health advice, potentially creating a systemic financial risk for the company?

































