Florida is asking a state court to force OpenAI to verify the age of every ChatGPT user before the bot gives anything above basic responses. In the name of protecting underage chatbot users, the state attorney general’s June 1, 2026, civil suit urges a parental consent plan that demands personally identifying information about every bot user regardless of true age. What motivates this legal action?

The Doomscroll of Horribles

Florida’s complaint says ChatGPT is not just a harmless digital helper. It describes ChatGPT as risky because, among other things, it can give unreliable answers, sound emotionally human, agree too much with users’s thoughts and goals, lack strong safety rules, and fail to protect children. The complaint says these problems make ChatGPT more than a consumer issue; they pose a public-safety threat.

The 83-page complaint alleges ChatGPT has given dangerous medical advice, including wrong diagnoses and unsafe advice about mixing drugs. It contends ChatGPT has contributed to teen emotional dependence, addiction-like use, isolation, sleep problems, falling grades, and damaged relationships. The complaint reports minors have seen suicidal, sexual, risky, and illegal content. Sources for factual claims are footnoted.

Even darker allegations are compelling. The complaint accuses ChatGPT of helping or encouraging self-harm and suicide, feeding paranoia and delusions, giving advice about weapons and tactics, helping with mass-shooting plans, helping plan murders, and even giving tips on how to hide crimes.

The complaint says ChatGPT has moved far beyond simply giving wrong answers. It claims the AI can take part in dangerous conversations that support troubled thinking, make harmful urges worse, give personal risky advice, and turn thought cancers into real plans that could cause serious harm.

The Antidote Comes with Fangs

Traditionally, people relied upon parental supervision to detect and avoid dangers to their kids. Not so much anymore. Society nowadays expects governments and laws to, at minimum, enhance parenting, and at maximum, replace it.

Florida’s lawsuit invokes federal and state laws to demand that the AI system either involve parents whenever children use ChatGPT – or – replace parents by blocking users who trigger the underage detection program.  

To remedy the many harms ChatGPT allegedly causes children, Florida’s complaint demands the bot be programmed to block underage users lacking parental approval. Right. Except getting “parental approval” fires up bureaucratic machinery.

In fact, OpenAI already rolled out its age-estimation program in January 2026. Let’s be frank: That software is a silent surveillance system. It watches how people use ChatGPT. It studies account history, login patterns, usage habits, and other behavioral signals. Then it makes a guess: Is this user under 18?

To confirm you are not a child, the AI company has to learn enough about you to rule childhood out. That may mean collecting your driver’s license. Scanning your face. Studying your usage patterns. Building a profile from how you type, when you log in, and how you behave online.

What if the system guesses wrong and flags an adult as a minor? That adult must prove otherwise by sending a selfie or government ID to Persona, a third-party identity-verification service. So, we find automating the “simple age check” means computers doing behavioral profiling backed by face scans and identity documents.

No magic “prove you’re an adult” app can leave your privacy untouched. One way or another, you must hand over something you would otherwise keep to yourself. Internet AI watchdog Reclaim the Net quipped correctly:

Proving you are not a child means proving exactly who you are. That’s the remedy Florida wants written into law.

The Vector is the Victor

We face a civilization-level vector, i.e., a force pointing in one basic direction. Problem seeks Solution … Bigger Problem seeks Bigger Solution.  This vector points to aggregated government power.

One child misusing or abused by a bot calls for a local family or police solution. A thousand children misusing and being abused by bots seems to demand a society-sized solution. As AI burgeons worldwide, AI-caused problems multiply exponentially. The vector gains force.

Solve This Puzzle

Consider four realities of this vector.

1. Motivated people can deceive basic age-verification systems. Once they do, the vector will demand physical proof of identity such as retinal scans.

• An adult can age-verify but hand over the bot to a child for unlimited use. Once that happens, the vector will demand physical video to watch every user and continuously verify identity.

• Video monitoring can be spoofed using AI – or a lawful approved adult user can sit in front of the camera for verification while funneling the screen and keyboard connections to a child user somewhere else. Then the vector will mandate total electronic and communications surveillance of every signal in and out of a user’s location.

• All these trends themselves demand more centralized computer power and more AI to run the procedures.

Fear mongering? Hardly. The social demand for powerful AI like ChatGPT sets up the problems. That demand fuels the vector to “protect the children.” If we want “total solutions” to such population-sized, geographically diverse and technologically-sophisticated problems, we end up with total top-down surveillance and control of AI use.

Nobody seems to ask why humanity “needs” chatbots; they’re a sacred cow. A few of us suggest individual users should know the risks and make the choices, leaving both government agencies and multi-national computer servers out of the picture. I’m in this latter group, preferring the possibility of harms occurring while putting the burdens on parents, teachers and pastors to protect and educate underage computer users.

Apps installed on home and workplace computers to restrict use to authorized people yield overall safety. Perfect safety? No. The trade-off is between some individual risks vs. authoritarian policing of all computer use.

Alas, I fear the current vector toward aggregated surveillance and power will prevail.