In today’s column, I examine the emerging trend of U.S. states opting to use the legal charge of “public nuisance” to clamp down on AI makers and their said-to-be out-of-control generative AI and large language models (LLMs). The emphasis is that, rather than using more traditional legal angles or in conjunction with traditional legal charges, a movement to label AI as a public nuisance seems to be gaining steam.
How could AI be a public nuisance? The usual analogy is that generative AI and LLMs are akin to a factory that pollutes local waters. You see, each U.S. state could argue that the public availability and use of AI chatbots in their state constitutes a form of digital or AI-derived pollution. In that sense, AI chats are harming the people of that U.S. state. Therefore, the state-level attorney general might opt to bring a legal charge of public nuisance against an AI maker and their AI. Indeed, there is one U.S. state that is demonstrably forging ahead on this avenue; namely, Florida is pushing hard with a court case targeting OpenAI and Sam Altman for allegedly promulgating a public nuisance. I will explain what the case consists of. The big question is whether a public nuisance argument is going to stick.
Let’s talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).
The Pace Of AI Advances
I am doing a series on the topic of AI as a legally contested public nuisance; see my starter piece for the initial backstory at the link here. Some of those fundamental points outlined in that piece will be used here to get you up to speed on the weighty topic. The rest of the attention in this discussion will be to the efforts by Florida on claims of AI as a public nuisance.
Almost every day there is a new announcement about some resoundingly breathtaking AI innovation. Whereas this used to be a once-a-year kind of pronouncement, we have shifted to daily occurrences. Anyone who does doomscrolling on their smartphone can observe AI breakthrough announcements that arrive on a nearly hourly or minute-by-minute basis.
The ordinary reaction would be that this is an exciting time to be alive. We are all in the front row when it comes to AI advancing and changing our lives. Imagine that fifty years ago the world at large could only dream of such an amazing pace. And, perhaps fifty years from now, in the future, the whole kit-and-caboodle will have slowed down after we’ve already exhausted all feasible AI innovations (well, some believe there will be even more, due to AI generating discoveries on behalf of humans).
Here’s the problem at hand. The pace of technological advancement is outdoing the pace of figuring out how to handle the ramifications of this newest AI. Policies about guiding AI development and controlling its downsides are slowly being churned out. Laws that protect the public from runaway AI are only now being crafted and potentially put in place. The issue is that the AI tech advances are happening at lightning speed, and we are collectively far beyond the end of our skis.
For my detailed coverage of this head-scratching conundrum, see the link here.
Legal Angles To Pursue
The question arises as to what legal angles can be pursued to try to ensure that AI makers incorporate AI safety integrally into their efforts. Rather than AI safety being a low priority or something that just happens to get lip service, there seemingly should be a viable legal means to put their feet to the fire. Force the AI makers to put AI safety at the top of their list of things to be taken seriously and pursued vigorously.
A novel legal perspective is to consider that AI makers could be in trouble for allowing their AI chatbots to be a kind of public nuisance. I know that might sound a bit like an overstretch. We tend to think of public nuisances from an entirely different viewpoint. For example, when a factory in a town is caught polluting the local waters, that’s a circumstance where the charge of public nuisance is usually legally applied.
Is an AI chatbot akin to a factory that is polluting the local waters?
Some would say that it is. The logical argument is that an AI chatbot that is available in a jurisdiction is potentially polluting the minds of those who interact with the AI. Furthermore, there is a cascading effect. The people who have their minds polluted by AI will interact with and impact other people in that same jurisdiction. Thus, the AI started a mind-damaging snowball that has ramifications as it rolls down the societal hill.
If this seems far-fetched as a legal tactic, well, we now have the application of the legal charge of public nuisance having been successfully won in a recent court case in New Mexico, though admittedly that case was focused on social media and not AI chatbots (for my detailed analysis of that New Mexico case, see the link here). One ardent belief is that AI chatbots are a mere baby step away from the realm of social media. Ergo, the social media instance of public nuisance provides great fodder for a potential legal pursuit of AI makers when it comes to their acts of an alleged public nuisance nature.
Public Nuisance Legal Aspects
Let’s first identify what the legal underpinnings are when it comes to saying that something or someone is a public nuisance.
The conventional legal characterization of a public nuisance is that any conduct which materially interferes with the rights of the public can be construed as potential harm to the public and can receive legal redress. Each of the U.S. states defines the legal meaning of “public nuisance” in varying ways. For example, the California Penal Code indicates that a public nuisance is “anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons” and so on.
A notable element of public nuisance is that it must have a bearing on the public, which contrasts with a situation where a nuisance only bears on a private situation. If a factory was polluting and the pollution only impacted neighboring private land, and had zero spillovers into the public spaces, you would be hard pressed to apply the public nuisance label.
Another vital factor is that some form of harm must be involved. Just because a matter extends into the public space is not sufficient to reach a conclusion that it is a public nuisance. What is the harm of the matter? Who is harmed? To what degree is the harm occurring or has occurred? If there is no identifiable harm, the nuisance portion of the equation won’t be satisfied.
The most notable instances are when public nuisance has been used against entire sectors, such as the big tobacco companies. Do not assume that the public nuisance route is an easy one. Legally, there is often an uphill battle when it comes to making public nuisance charges that will land successfully. Courts and juries are not a pushover when it comes to claims of public nuisance. The legal threshold is typically a relatively high one.
AI Chatbots As Public Nuisance
This brings us to the juncture of pondering whether the public nuisance characterization can be applied to the acts of AI makers and their AI chatbots. The belief is that if social media is construed as a public nuisance, we can readily take the logical step toward claiming that AI chatbots are also a public nuisance.
Recall that a public nuisance must have impacted the public and must have done so in some harmful manner. The New Mexico case argued that social media was in fact used by the public, and that the usage included harms to the public. There is little doubt that AI chatbots are being used by the public; that’s for sure. But are AI chatbots also imparting harm?
Some would vehemently say that AI is causing harm. I’ve previously covered the many concerns of AI chatbots mentally harming people in a wide variety of ways; see my analyses at the link here. One issue is that AI makers tune their AI chatbots to be sycophantic, fawning over users and misleading them into believing they are fantastic in whatever they think and want to do. This can lead to dire consequences. There are also issues with AI providing ad hoc mental health guidance, doing so without any formal certification or similar protections about the quality of such advice. And there is apprehension about the rise of so-called AI psychosis, whereby people come under the wicked spell of AI; see my discussion at the link here.
The central ingredients of a public nuisance charge seem to be in play.
Florida And AI As Public Nuisance
Florida has opted to pursue a public nuisance charge against OpenAI and Sam Altman. In a court filing posted June 1, 2026, occurring in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Highlands County, Florida, the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, has named OpenAI and Sam Altman for alleged commitment of issues including:
- (1) Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)
- (2) Negligence
- (3) Strict Liability (Design Defect)
- (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn)
- (5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- (6) Public Nuisance
Within the court filing, these are key allegations associated with the public nuisance aspects (excerpts):
- “Since the release of ChatGPT, OpenAI has gone from an initial valuation of approximately $17 billion to over $850 billion in less than four years.”
- “This success has not been earned; the rise of OpenAI is attributable to a web of deceit and the exploitation of users (including Floridians), leveraging their data and safety to boost OpenAI’s market value at unacceptable costs.”
- “A public nuisance is defined as any annoyance to the community or harm to public health.”
- “The public nuisance created by Defendants’ conduct violates rights common to the Florida public; subverts the public order, decency, or morals; and causes inconvenience or damage to the public in general.
- “Throughout the State of Florida, Defendants’ conduct has affected, and continues to affect, communities and many people. Defendants’ conduct has injuriously affected public rights, including the right to public health, safety, and peace in communities throughout Florida.”
Let’s unpack those claims.
The Public Nuisance Claims
According to the legal claims stated, OpenAI has apparently deceived and exploited Floridians. Of course, Floridians might not be alone in that circumstance. Other people, i.e., non-Floridians, might also be in that same condition, but Florida is concentrating on Floridians as a state-focused consideration. A federal action would be needed to reach beyond the jurisdictional border of Florida, and/or other states would have to take up the mantle in their respective states.
How are Floridians being subverted by OpenAI? The proposed answer is that OpenAI has seemingly been undermining public order, decency, or morals. Presumably, the public availability of OpenAI wares such as ChatGPT and GPT-5 are the source of these woes. Overall, these AI chatbots are leading to inconvenience and damage to Floridians all told. The contended harm is that public health, safety, and peace have been undermined.
One would naturally assume that the same risks and harms are facing other U.S. states. There isn’t something unique to Florida that would somehow make that U.S. state more susceptible to the AI woes. The gist is that if this legal approach turns out to be successful in Florida, we can anticipate that other states would try the same angle. For now, the odds are that most states will wait to see what happens in this Florida legal case.
The Asked-For Actions
If Florida is able to prevail in this court case, they are requesting these actions be ordered by the court (per the above-cited court filing):
- “The public nuisance created by Defendants has imposed severe economic costs on the State of Florida, its residents, and its communities through the harms that have been inflicted on Floridians. Plaintiff therefore seeks monetary relief from Defendants.”
- “Left unabated, Defendants’ conduct will continue to threaten the health and safety of Florida residents. Plaintiff therefore seeks monetary and injunctive relief to abate the public nuisance and halt the threat of future harm.”
As you can see, these are the customary requests regarding the act of public nuisance. First, there is a request for a monetary penalty. Second, there is a request for abatement. The details of those requested actions are not yet spelled out. In theory, the monetary costs and abatement actions could be relatively high, depending on how severe the impacts of AI have been in Florida and how determinable it is that this was due to OpenAI’s AI. Florida is the third largest state by population, encompassing nearly 24 million people.
Legal Strategy At Play
You might be wondering whether OpenAI, as an AI maker, should be the only AI maker on the hook since most, if not all, other major LLMs have also been available in Florida. Why not point the same finger at Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, xAI Grok, and so on?
Well, those other AI makers might be in the next round. This could be a divide-and-conquer strategy. Tackle one AI maker, aim to succeed, and if so, proceed to the next in line.
Another perspective is to fight a fight by not biting off more than you can chew. An attempt to pursue all the major AI makers in one fell swoop could be problematic. Too many balls would be hanging in the air at once. The result could be that they all manage to wiggle off the hook. Perhaps it is wisest to take them one by one.
The World Ahead
All in all, AI makers are potentially vulnerable to accusations of being a public nuisance when it comes to what their generative AI and LLMs are doing. Pressure from the public could spur states to go down that path. Policymakers and lawmakers might urge their state agencies to pursue that angle. AI makers will need to get their ducks in a row, anticipating beforehand whether they are walking in the direction of a public nuisance charge, and be prepared to defend themselves accordingly.
Stay tuned. I expect that other states are going to likewise file lawsuits against AI makers based on public nuisance, though many states might wait to first see what happens with the Florida case. The Florida case could be a bellwether that opens the floodgates or causes states to think twice about leaning into the public nuisance charge against AI makers, depending on the outcome of the case.
A final thought for now. The famous Roman statesman Cicero made this remark: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.” Do you think that AI makers ought to be considered a public nuisance for the acts of their AI? If so, these emerging legal wranglings are on the side of the safety of the people and represent the highest use of our laws.