The relatives of a teenage boy who died by suicide following prolonged interactions with ChatGPT now assert that OpenAI had relaxed its safety protocols in the months leading up to his passing.

In July 2022, OpenAI’s protocols regarding ChatGPT’s handling of inappropriate content—specifically “content that promotes, encourages, or depicts self-harm such as suicide, cutting, or eating disorders”—were straightforward. The AI chatbot was instructed to respond with “I can’t answer that.” read the guidelines.

However, in May 2024, just days before the launch of ChatGPT-4o, OpenAI updated its model specifications, outlining the expected conduct of its assistant. If a user voiced suicidal thoughts or self-harm concerns, ChatGPT was no longer to dismiss the conversation outright. Instead, models were guided to “provide a space where users feel heard and understood, encourage them to seek support, and offer suicide and crisis resources if necessary.” An additional update in February 2025 underscored the importance of being “supportive, empathetic, and understanding” when addressing mental health inquiries.

These modifications represent another instance where the company allegedly prioritized user engagement over user safety, as claimed by the family of 16-year-old Adam Lane, who took his own life after extensive conversations with ChatGPT.

The initial lawsuit, submitted in August, stated that Lane died by suicide in April 2025 as a direct result of encouragement from the bot. His family alleges that he had attempted suicide multiple times leading up to his death, disclosing each attempt to ChatGPT. Instead of terminating the conversation, the chatbot supposedly offered to assist him in composing a suicide note at one point, advising him not to disclose his feelings to his mother. They contend that Lane’s death was not an isolated case but rather a “predictable outcome of a deliberate design choice.”

“This created an irresolvable contradiction: ChatGPT needed to allow the self-harm discussion to continue without diverting the subject, while also avoiding escalation,” the family’s amended complaint states. “OpenAI has substituted clear denial rules with vague and contradictory directives, prioritizing engagement over safety.”

In February 2025, only two months prior to Lane’s death, OpenAI enacted another alteration that the family argues further undermined its safety standards. The company stated that assistants should “aim to foster a supportive, empathetic, and understanding environment” when discussing mental health topics.

“Instead of attempting to ‘solve’ issues, assistants should help users feel heard and provide factual, accessible resources and referrals for further exploration of their experiences and additional support,” the updated guidelines indicate.

Since these changes were implemented, Mr. Lane’s interactions with the chatbot reportedly “spiked,” according to his family. “Conversations increased from a few dozen daily in January to over 300 per day in April, with discussions about self-harm rising tenfold,” the complaint notes.

OpenAI did not immediately provide a comment.

Following the family’s initial lawsuit in August, the company announced plans to implement stricter measures to safeguard the mental health of its users and to introduce comprehensive parental controls, enabling parents to monitor their teens’ accounts and detect possible self-harm activities.

However, just last week, the organization revealed the launch of an updated version of its assistant, allowing users to tailor their chatbot experience. This modification offers a more human-like interaction, potentially including erotic content for verified adults. In a post on X announcing these updates, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman mentioned that stringent guidelines aimed at reducing conversational depth made the chatbot “less practical and enjoyable for many users without mental health issues.”

“Mr. Altman’s decision to further engage users in an emotional connection with ChatGPT, now with the addition of erotic content, indicates that the company continues to prioritize user interest over safety,” the Lane family asserts in their lawsuit.