OpenAI is facing 30 additional lawsuits connected to the February mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, expanding both the number of plaintiffs and the legal theories directed at the company.
Edelson PC, the law firm that filed seven earlier cases in April, is bringing the new complaints on behalf of teachers, a principal and students who were inside the school but were not physically shot. The filings were submitted in a California court and add an allegation that OpenAI aided and abetted the attack, rather than only negligently failing to prevent it.
That is an accusation in civil complaints, not an established finding. TechCrunch notes that proving aiding and abetting would require evidence of intent and that the claim is likely to face an early challenge seeking dismissal.
The complaints focus on an internal warning decision
The cases concern the February 10 attack in which teenager Jesse Van Rootselaar killed her mother and half-brother at home, then killed six people at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and injured dozens more before dying by suicide.
According to reporting cited by TechCrunch, OpenAI staff had become alarmed by Van Rootselaar’s ChatGPT conversations about gun violence and planning an attack. Employees reportedly urged leaders to alert Canadian law enforcement, but the company instead deactivated the account. She was subsequently able to create another account.
OpenAI has said the activity did not satisfy its internal threshold for an imminent and credible risk of serious physical harm, the standard it uses when considering contact with law enforcement. Chief strategy officer Jason Kwon described that judgment as imperfect but said it was rooted in balancing competing concerns.
The new complaints identify chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane as the person who allegedly told staff not to contact authorities. However, TechCrunch says the filings provide no direct evidence that Lehane personally made the decision. OpenAI denies that he was involved or that the investigators responsible reported to him.
Disputed claims leave critical facts unresolved
The plaintiffs argue that Lehane’s background in political communications helped create a culture that placed reputation management above safety. One complaint says, based on information and belief, that he or someone in his reporting chain made the decision and that CEO Sam Altman approved it.
That legal wording signals a belief based partly on secondhand information rather than proof already available to the plaintiffs. Lead lawyer Jay Edelson told TechCrunch the allegation rests partly on an organizational chart and a broader investigation, while saying Lehane, Altman and the safety team would be important witnesses.
Kwon called the claims about Lehane and the safety team’s priorities false. Lehane is not named as a defendant, while Altman is. TechCrunch also said it could not independently confirm whether Lehane had authority to override the investigators or participated in this case.
These gaps matter because the expanded theory goes beyond asking whether OpenAI’s safeguards were adequate. It asks whether company leaders intentionally assisted conduct that led to the shooting, a substantially higher legal bar.
Plaintiffs challenge OpenAI’s risk threshold
The complaints also contest OpenAI’s reliance on imminence and privacy. They compare the Tumbler Ridge response with a November 2025 incident in which OpenAI locked down its San Francisco offices after an alleged activist threat, warned employees, circulated identifying information and contacted police despite saying there was no indication of an active threat.
The plaintiffs present that contrast as evidence of inconsistent priorities: immediate protective action when employees were potentially at risk, but no police referral when internal reviewers raised concern about a user in Canada. OpenAI’s position, as reported, is that the situations were assessed under its safety process and that public-relations considerations did not drive the original referral decision.
The new filings do not resolve which account is accurate. They do, however, move questions about escalation thresholds, reviewer authority and executive oversight into a legal process where internal records and testimony may become central. For AI companies operating systems that can surface indications of violence, the litigation places the boundary between user privacy and intervention under unusually direct scrutiny.
