OpenAI Faces Claims It Chose Silence Before Tumbler Ridge Attack

OpenAI Faces Claims It Chose Silence Before Tumbler Ridge Attack
Plaintiffs portray OpenAI’s safety system as a missed chance to intervene, while the company says it made a difficult risk-and-privacy judgment—not a calculation shaped by reputation or politics.

The dispute traces back to February 10, when Jesse Van Rootselaar killed her mother and half-brother, then killed six people and injured dozens at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia before dying by suicide. The subsequent litigation alleges OpenAI’s automated systems had flagged her ChatGPT conversations about gun violence and attack planning, prompting safety staff to recommend contacting Canadian authorities.

OpenAI instead deactivated the account, according to the complaints—a step plaintiffs say left Van Rootselaar able to return by creating another account with a different email address. In April, victims’ families filed seven cases. This week, Edelson PC added 30 federal complaints on behalf of students, teachers and the school principal who were present during the attack, broadening the claim from negligence to alleged aiding and abetting.

That sharper allegation turns on intent. The lawsuits contend that continued access to ChatGPT was “substantial assistance in itself” and a key factor in planning and carrying out the attack. They also allege that Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, was involved in a decision not to alert police—a claim the filings acknowledge is based on information and belief, rather than direct evidence.

OpenAI denies that account. Jason Kwon, its chief strategy officer, said it was “absolutely false” that Lehane participated in the original referral decision or that investigators reported to him. The company’s position is that Van Rootselaar’s activity did not meet its internal threshold for an “imminent and credible risk” requiring law-enforcement contact; Kwon called that judgment imperfect but rooted in balancing people’s interests.

Plaintiffs counter that OpenAI acted faster when its own offices faced a later threat, arguing the contrast undermines its privacy and imminence defense. Whether that comparison can establish intent—and survive an early legal challenge—now sits at the center of the new cases.

Continue reading https://foxvector.com/stories/01a0640e-7730-2579-724b-38435069d99c