OpenAI Confronts 30 Additional Tumbler Ridge Shooting Complaints

Edelson PC is filing 30 additional complaints against OpenAI in a California court over the February 10 shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. The new plaintiffs include teachers, a principal and students who were inside Tumbler Ridge Secondary School during the attack but were not physically shot. The filings follow seven lawsuits the firm brought in April on behalf of victims and families.

The complaints concern teenager Jesse Van Rootselaar, who killed her mother and half-brother at home, then killed six people and injured dozens at the school before dying by suicide. The new actions name OpenAI and, as in the earlier cases, CEO Sam Altman. They expand the legal theory from alleged negligent failure to prevent harm to a claim that OpenAI aided and abetted the shooting.

A more demanding legal allegation

An aiding-and-abetting claim requires plaintiffs to establish intent by OpenAI, making it likely to face early challenges seeking dismissal. The complaints rely on reports that OpenAI employees were concerned by Van Rootselaar’s use of ChatGPT, including conversations about gun violence and advice on planning an attack. Staff reportedly urged company leaders to contact Canadian law enforcement.

OpenAI instead deactivated Van Rootselaar’s account, but she was able to create another account shortly afterwards. The company has said the activity did not meet its internal standard for an “imminent and credible risk” of serious physical harm to others, the threshold it uses to engage law enforcement. In a statement, Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon said that judgement is not infallible but is rooted in balancing concerns for people.

The dispute follows OpenAI apology to Tumbler Ridge over police alert, which documented OpenAI’s apology to Tumbler Ridge over the lack of a police notification, and it puts the company’s escalation process at the centre of the wider litigation.

Dispute over decision-making authority

The complaints specifically identify Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane as the person who allegedly instructed staff not to contact authorities. They do not provide direct evidence of his personal involvement, use the legal formulation “on information and belief,” and do not list Lehane as a defendant.

Plaintiffs argue that the Intelligence and Investigations Team, described in the complaints as OpenAI’s only unit responsible for identifying ChatGPT users who could pose a real-world violence risk, was under Lehane’s control. They allege that the decision not to alert Canadian police was made by Lehane or someone in his chain of command and ratified by Altman.

OpenAI rejects that account. Kwon said it was “absolutely false” that Lehane was involved in the original referral decision or that investigators reported to him. He also denied that political or public-relations considerations influenced the people making these safety decisions.

Internal safety thresholds under scrutiny

The complaints challenge OpenAI’s references to imminence and privacy by citing a November 2025 alleged threat involving an activist and the company’s San Francisco offices. They say OpenAI locked down offices, warned employees, circulated the suspect’s name and photograph, and notified the San Francisco Police Department despite acknowledging no indication of active threat activity.

For businesses deploying systems that surface potential physical-safety risks, the case underlines the importance of documented escalation thresholds, clear decision authority and records showing how safety, privacy and law-enforcement considerations were weighed in individual cases.