The litigation hinges on a threshold legal question: whether ChatGPT qualifies as a "product" or a "software-based service." Plaintiffs are pursuing traditional products-liability theories—design defect and failure to warn—while OpenAI has argued in its filings that ChatGPT is a service rather than a product. A parallel California case, Garcia v. Character Technologies, involving a competing chatbot, is being watched closely because that court treated the chatbot as a product for liability purposes based on its design features. The outcome of the OpenAI consolidation could turn on how the court resolves this threshold classification.
The consolidation reflects a broader shift in AI-harm litigation from isolated complaints to coordinated proceedings as similar injury allegations accumulate. The timing is significant because Congress is actively considering AI-liability frameworks, including the bipartisan AI LEAD Act introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Josh Hawley, which would classify AI systems as products and create a federal cause of action for certain AI-related harms. The EU has similarly moved to treat software and AI as products under its revised product-liability directive. If plaintiffs prevail on the product classification, discovery could compel disclosure of internal safety evaluations, red-teaming records, and design decisions—making this case potentially influential well beyond OpenAI and establishing precedent for how U.S. courts apply products-liability law to AI systems.