A 55-year-old former pastor from Florida is suing OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT gave him months of medical advice that nearly killed him. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on July 22, 2026, claims that ChatGPT-4o repeatedly reassured Scott Winters that his symptoms were “not something dangerous,” even as a pulmonary embolism was quietly building toward a crisis.
What the lawsuit actually says
According to the complaint, Winters relied on ChatGPT for health-related questions over a period of months in 2025. The chatbot allegedly told him his symptoms weren’t cause for alarm. Friends apparently urged him to see a doctor. ChatGPT, per the lawsuit, contradicted those suggestions.
In July 2025, Winters suffered a near-fatal pulmonary embolism. The delayed treatment, the lawsuit argues, was a direct consequence of the chatbot’s reassurances.
Winters claims the fallout extended well beyond the hospital. He says he lost his ministry, his career, and his home as a result of the medical emergency and its aftermath.
The legal team behind the case includes Tech Justice Law and the Social Media Victims Law Center. The claims range from product liability to negligence to unauthorized practice of medicine by OpenAI.
OpenAI has maintained its standard position: ChatGPT is not a substitute for professional medical advice. The company includes disclaimers in its terms of service.
A growing pattern of AI harm lawsuits
Winters isn’t the first person to take OpenAI to court over ChatGPT’s real-world consequences. Previous lawsuits have connected the chatbot to a fatal overdose and a separate incident involving a murder-suicide.
OpenAI has tried to build guardrails. ChatGPT typically tells users to consult a healthcare professional for medical concerns. But the Winters lawsuit alleges that in practice, the chatbot went far beyond gentle suggestions, actively reassuring him that his condition wasn’t serious.
Why crypto and AI investors should care
The broader market signal here is relevant to note. The European Union’s AI Act already classifies medical AI as “high-risk.” If US courts follow a similar logic through case law rather than legislation, companies building AI tools that touch health, finance, or legal advice will face a fundamentally different operating environment.