OpenAI Accused of Aiding Tumbler Ridge Mass Shooting in Lawsuits
Left 33%
Center 0%
Right 67%
1 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
In February in Tumbler Ridge, a mining town of about 2,500 in British Columbia, 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar is accused of killing five children and one adult at the secondary school and severely wounding two other students, after first killing his mother and 11-year-old half-brother at home; he was found dead at the scene. In June of the previous year, OpenAI deactivated a ChatGPT account used by Van Rootselaar after conversations about gun violence were flagged, but did not notify Canadian authorities, and later said it found a second account. On Wednesday, about 30 lawsuits were filed in California federal court by students, teachers, and the principal who were at the school, accusing OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman of providing “substantial assistance and encouragement” to the suspect, adding to seven suits filed in April by victims’ families. The complaints allege that OpenAI’s safety team recommended contacting police, that chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane was involved in a decision to stay silent over concern for “reputational and financial standing,” and that deactivating the account rather than issuing a system-wide ban allowed the suspect to return with another email. OpenAI chief strategy officer Jason Kwon said the lawsuits contain “false claims” and that it is “completely untrue” that political or public-relations factors were at play; in an April letter to Tumbler Ridge residents, Altman wrote he was “deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June.”
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The two sides are not describing the same alleged wrong. Left-leaning coverage in The Verge reports that plaintiffs treat OpenAI's decision to deactivate an account rather than issue a system-wide ban as the aid itself, because the suspect could sign up again with another email. That is a claim about continued access as the assistance. Right-leaning coverage never frames the loophole that way. The New York Post instead treats the harm as a failure to call police and as a product that encouraged the shooter, so a reader there meets a story about silence toward authorities rather than a story about letting the shooter keep the chatbot.
Right-leaning coverage marks the suspect by gender identity in the lede; left-leaning coverage does not. The New York Post calls the suspect a "trans teen shooter." Left-leaning coverage never mentions gender identity.
What did the flagged ChatGPT conversations actually contain?
Bottom line
The Verge casts OpenAI as having aided the Tumbler Ridge attack by leaving a deactivation loophole open; the New York Post casts the same case as a failure to call the police.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Plaintiffs allege OpenAI deactivated the shooter's account rather than issuing a system-wide ban, allowing signup with another email, and that continued access was substantial assistance in itself
- 30 new lawsuits were filed by students, teachers, and the principal
- Lawsuits allege chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane was involved in a decision to stay silent over reputational and financial standing
- In an April letter, Sam Altman wrote he was deeply sorry OpenAI did not alert law enforcement to the account banned in June
- 12 employees from ChatGPT's safety team allegedly urged the company to inform Canadian police before the shooting
- The shooting killed five children and one adult at the school
The Left View
The Verge frames the new suits as an expansion of claims that OpenAI “aided and abetted” the attack by providing “substantial assistance and encouragement.” It stresses the allegation that, after automated systems flagged the suspect’s conversations about gun violence, the safety team recommended contacting Canadian authorities, yet Chris Lehane was involved in a decision to stay silent out of concern for “reputational and financial standing.” The piece foregrounds the complaint’s assertion that letting the suspect keep using ChatGPT after a deactivation rather than a system-wide ban “constituted substantial assistance in itself” and was “a key factor in causing the Shooter to plan and carry out the attack,” while recording Kwon’s statement that the filings contain “false claims” and that it is “completely untrue” safety decisions were shaped by political or public-relations factors.
The Right View
The New York Post frames the cases as victims suing over a “product that encouraged a deranged teen,” identifying Van Rootselaar as a trans teenager and arguing OpenAI could have stopped the massacre by alerting police to “troubling messages.” It leads with attorney Jay Edelson’s statement that students and teachers found themselves “in a war zone” because OpenAI “created a dangerous product that encouraged a deranged teenager to plan and carry out a mass shooting,” and that “its political and PR team overrode” a safety team that “urged OpenAI – twice – to alert the authorities.” Graphic lawsuit descriptions of teachers and students during the attack are used to claim lasting trauma from “OpenAI’s negligence,” and the paper reports that 12 safety-team employees allegedly urged notifying Canadian police while the company declined, worried it “would set a precedent.” It places the suits in a “growing pile of litigation” alleging chatbots encouraged users to harm themselves or others, and relays Edelson’s demand for the full chat logs and for leaders to be held accountable.
Our Take (balanced)
The left-leaning account’s strongest point is the legal claim of “substantial assistance”: internal flags, a safety-team recommendation to contact police, an alleged reputation-driven refusal, and a deactivation that supposedly left a path back onto ChatGPT—a missed warning Altman himself later said he was “deeply sorry” the company did not make. The right-leaning account’s strongest point is Edelson’s charge that ChatGPT was a “dangerous product that encouraged a deranged teenager,” backed by the reported override of safety by a “political and PR team,” the claim that 12 employees urged a police tip, and detailed victim testimony offered as proof of negligence’s cost. The central unresolved tension is whether OpenAI’s failure to alert authorities and its account-handling were a reputational choice that legally aided the attack, or a fallible safety judgment that Kwon says was not political—and whether the chatbot “encouraged” the shooting or failed to interrupt a plot the company had already flagged.
3 sources
- OpenAI accused of ‘aiding and abetting’ Tumbler Ridge mass shooting in dozens of new lawsuits
- Teacher, students sue OpenAI over deadly Canadian school shooting: ‘Product that encouraged a deranged teen’
- Teacher, students sue OpenAI over deadly Canadian school shooting: ‘Product that encouraged a deranged teen’
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.