Edelson PC files 30 new lawsuits against OpenAI over Tumbler Ridge school shooting

Chicago-based plaintiffs’ firm Edelson PC is dramatically expanding its legal offensive against OpenAI, filing 30 new lawsuits that escalate the claims from negligence to aiding and abetting. The new filings also name OpenAI’s head of global affairs, Chris Lehane, as a defendant, widening the circle of individuals the firm holds personally responsible for the February 2026 Tumbler Ridge school shooting.

The legal campaign now totals roughly 37 lawsuits tied to the massacre, which killed eight people and injured at least 27 at a school in British Columbia. Plaintiffs are seeking over $1 billion in combined damages.

The case against OpenAI

The core allegation is damning in its simplicity. OpenAI’s internal safety team flagged the ChatGPT account of shooter Jesse Van Rootselaar for violent content back in June 2025, months before the February 10, 2026, attack. Leadership overruled the recommendation to report the account to authorities.

The original seven lawsuits filed on April 29, 2026, targeted OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman with claims of negligence, product liability, and wrongful death. The 30 new filings ratchet things up considerably by alleging aiding and abetting, a legal theory that implies the company actively facilitated the harm rather than merely failing to prevent it.

Van Rootselaar killed five children and an educator before dying by suicide during the attack. The plaintiffs contend that OpenAI not only ignored warning signs but also allowed the shooter to create a new account after an initial ban, effectively giving him a second chance to use the platform for violent ideation.

Each lawsuit requests a jury trial, a strategic choice that puts the question of OpenAI’s culpability before ordinary citizens rather than judges who might apply narrower legal reasoning.

Why naming Chris Lehane matters

Adding Lehane to the defendant list is a calculated move. As OpenAI’s head of global affairs, Lehane occupies the role most directly responsible for the company’s public-facing safety commitments and its relationships with regulators and law enforcement. Naming him personally signals that Edelson PC intends to pierce the corporate veil, arguing that individual executives bear direct responsibility for safety failures, not just the corporate entity.

What makes this case different from typical platform liability disputes is the allegation of specific, prior knowledge. If Edelson PC can demonstrate that OpenAI’s safety team made a concrete recommendation to report Van Rootselaar and that leadership explicitly rejected it, the company’s defense becomes significantly harder to mount. This is not a case about an algorithm failing to catch something. It is a case about humans allegedly choosing to ignore a clear warning.

Broader implications for the AI industry

The litigation arrives at a moment when AI companies are under intensifying scrutiny over safety practices. For investors in AI companies, the lawsuits represent a new category of risk. A $1 billion damages claim against a company valued in the hundreds of billions is not existential on its own. But a successful precedent establishing that AI companies can be held liable as aiders and abettors when their products are misused, particularly when internal safety flags were raised and ignored, would ripple across the entire sector.

Edelson PC appears to be betting that quantity and escalation will force a reckoning, whether that comes in a courtroom or a settlement negotiation.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.