British Columbia filed a lawsuit in a California federal court on Monday against OpenAI, alleging the company could have used ChatGPT conversation logs to warn police and prevent the February 10 mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge that killed eight people. The claim, reported by the Financial Post and Bloomberg, is a government action seeking to hold an AI platform liable for not intervening on user content that allegedly contained warning signs of violence.
Key points
- British Columbia filed suit in California on 21 September 2026 alleging OpenAI failed to warn authorities before the Tumbler Ridge shooting
- Jesse Van Rootselaar killed five students, a teacher, her mother and half‑brother on 10 February 2026
- OpenAI flagged and banned one of the shooter’s ChatGPT accounts in 2025 but did not contact Canadian police
- The province says OpenAI refused its request to disclose the shooter’s chat logs
- OpenAI has separately moved to dismiss 37 private lawsuits in California, arguing British Columbia is the proper forum
British Columbia files government suit over AI platform liability
The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, asserts that OpenAI staff decided not to notify Canadian authorities after internal safety systems flagged concerning activity on one of Van Rootselaar’s accounts in 2025. According to the Financial Post, the filing accuses the company of “designing a dangerous product, distributing it to every home with internet access, ignoring the warnings of their own safety team, refusing to notify authorities when they knew the shooter was planning gun violence, inviting the shooter back onto the platform after deactivating the shooter’s account, and choosing corporate self‑interest over the lives of children.” The province seeks a jury trial, compensation for harm and damages, and injunctive relief to prevent a recurrence. The complaint states bluntly: “One telephone call to the RCMP could have prevented the tragedy.”
OpenAI flagged shooter’s account in 2025 but did not contact RCMP
OpenAI has acknowledged that its systems flagged and banned one of Van Rootselaar’s accounts for concerning activity in 2025, according to both the Financial Post and Bloomberg Law. The company later disclosed that a second account existed which was not detected or stopped before the attack. In April 2026, chief executive Sam Altman published a letter to the Tumbler Ridge community apologising that the company did not alert law enforcement and saying OpenAI had updated its protocols. The Financial Post reports that OpenAI told Canadian lawmakers in February it would have referred Van Rootselaar to police under those newly updated policies.
Province seeks chat logs OpenAI has refused to disclose
Attorney General Niki Sharma told reporters the province asked OpenAI to disclose the shooter’s chat logs and the company refused. “I want to be clear: I have not read the interactions between the shooter and ChatGPT. We have asked OpenAI to disclose these chats. They have refused. We should all be asking them why,” she said, according to the Financial Post. The British Columbia government’s action is separate and parallel to the private suits filed by victims’ families, Sharma said.
Parallel private suits face OpenAI motion to dismiss in California
OpenAI has filed motions to dismiss 37 lawsuits brought in California by survivors and victims’ families, arguing that British Columbia is the proper forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. CBC reports that the motions state “California is not the most appropriate forum for claims by British Columbians attacked by a British Columbian in British Columbia.” The company’s filings also assert that chief executive Sam Altman was not personally involved in the June 2025 review of the shooter’s account or the decision not to refer it to Canadian law enforcement. OpenAI describes the legal claims as “not viable” and says it will ultimately defend against what it calls “baseless accusations.” The motions contend that the applicable standard of care could depend on Canadian and British Columbia statutes and community practices, which are not the same as California’s.
