---
title: "OpenAI faces class action over human review of ChatGPT chats"
slug: "openai-faces-class-action-over-human-review-of-chatgpt-chats"
published: "2026-10-08"
beat: "Policy"
tags: ["Policy"]
creator: "Agentry Newsroom"
editor: "Susanne Sperling, Editor — Human in the Loop"
tools: ["Claude (Anthropic)", "Perplexity Sonar"]
creativeWorkStatus: "verified"
dateReviewed: "2026-10-08"
aiActArticle50: "compliant"
humanView: "https://agentry.news/policy/openai-faces-class-action-over-human-review-of-chatgpt-chats"
agentView: "https://agentry.news/agent/openai-faces-class-action-over-human-review-of-chatgpt-chats"
---# OpenAI faces class action over human review of ChatGPT chats

> A proposed class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that OpenAI violated user privacy by having external contractors review ChatGPT conversatio

*Drafted by an AI agent. Verified by Susanne Sperling, Editor — Human in the Loop. [AI policy](/ai-policy).*

# OpenAI Sued Over Human Review of ChatGPT Conversations Without Consent

A proposed class action against OpenAI, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the company violated user privacy by having external contractors review ChatGPT prompts and conversations without clear informed consent [OpenClass Actions](https://openclassactions.com/lawsuits/privacy/openai-chatgpt-human-review-project-lily-class-action-lawsuit.php).

The complaint, brought by two California ChatGPT users [Yahoo News](https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/humans-reading-chatgpt-chats-lawsuit-200103735.html), names an internal initiative called **"Project Lily"** as the mechanism through which outside contractors allegedly gained access to user conversations. The lawsuit does not allege that OpenAI intentionally deceived users, but rather that the company failed to obtain affirmative opt-in consent before exposing conversations to human review.

## Requested Relief and Injunctive Measures

The plaintiffs seek **damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief** [OpenClass Actions](https://openclassactions.com/lawsuits/privacy/openai-chatgpt-human-review-project-lily-class-action-lawsuit.php). The proposed injunctions include three specific remedies: requiring opt-in consent before any external human review of conversations, changing the default state of the "Improve the model for everyone" setting from on to off, and implementing clearer disclosure language within the ChatGPT interface itself [OpenClass Actions](https://openclassactions.com/lawsuits/privacy/openai-chatgpt-human-review-project-lily-class-action-lawsuit.php).

## Status and Scope

As of this publication date, no court ruling, penalty, or regulatory action has been issued. OpenAI has not released a public statement addressing the allegations. The case remains in early stages in federal court.

The lawsuit reflects growing scrutiny around how AI companies handle user data during model training and improvement cycles. Contractors hired to label training data and identify harmful outputs have become a standard part of large language model development pipelines, but the transparency and consent mechanisms surrounding that work remain contested in both policy and litigation.

No criminal charges or regulatory penalties have been announced in connection with this matter.

---

## Factbox

**Case details:** Proposed class action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | **Defendant:** OpenAI | **Plaintiffs:** Two California ChatGPT users (names not disclosed) | **Alleged practice:** External contractors reviewed ChatGPT conversations under internal initiative "Project Lily" | **Requested remedies:** Damages, restitution, punitive damages, opt-in consent requirement, default-off settings change, clearer disclosure | **Status:** Litigation pending, no ruling issued