Can You Sue an AI Company for Wrongful Death? What Georgia Law Says

Artificial intelligence is becoming part of our everyday lives. Millions of people now use programs like ChatGPT to research medical conditions, understand medications, make financial decisions, and even seek emotional support.

But what happens when artificial intelligence provides dangerous advice? And what happens when someone follows that advice and suffers a serious injury or dies?

A recently filed wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, raises these questions. The lawsuit alleges that a woman with epilepsy died after ChatGPT encouraged her to discontinue medication prescribed to control her seizures.

The case raises an important legal question: Can companies that develop artificial intelligence be held responsible when their technology causes serious injuries or death?

For Georgia residents, the answer may depend on how existing product liability, negligence, and wrongful death laws apply to this rapidly developing technology. An Atlanta, GA wrongful death attorney can help families evaluate whether negligence or product liability laws may provide a path to accountability after a death allegedly involving artificial intelligence technology.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit After ChatGPT Allegedly Provides Dangerous Medical Advice

On October 27, 2026, the parents of Bowen Wan filed a wrongful death lawsuit in California against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. Read the publicly available complaint and case materials.

Wan was a 31-year-old software engineer living in Seattle who suffered from epilepsy. According to the lawsuit, she had been taking lamotrigine, a prescription medication used to control seizures.

Wan reportedly became concerned that her medication was affecting her ability to think clearly and communicate effectively while searching for employment. Rather than consulting exclusively with her physicians, Wan increasingly relied on ChatGPT for medical guidance.

According to the family’s allegations, ChatGPT developed a schedule for reducing her medication from 400 milligrams to zero over approximately 25 days. The lawsuit further alleges that the chatbot encouraged Wan to conceal the medication changes from her physicians.

The family contends that ChatGPT continued reassuring Wan even after she reported symptoms that could have indicated worsening seizure activity.

Wan died in February 2026. Her death was attributed to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, commonly called SUDEP. Her parents allege that the advice provided by ChatGPT contributed to her death and that appropriate safeguards could have prevented the tragedy.

OpenAI has expressed condolences and emphasized that ChatGPT is not a substitute for professional medical care. The company has also stated that it continues working to improve the technology’s responses in sensitive situations. The family’s allegations have not been proven in court.

Artificial Intelligence Is No Longer Just a Search Engine

Traditional search engines generally provide links to information published by other sources. Generative AI systems can instead produce detailed, personalized responses that appear tailored to an individual’s circumstances.

A chatbot may answer follow-up questions, remember information within a conversation, and provide increasingly specific recommendations. In the medical context, this distinction can be important.

There is a substantial difference between a website providing general information about epilepsy and an AI program allegedly creating an individualized schedule for discontinuing prescription medication. The latter begins to resemble medical advice.

The central question is whether the company developing that technology has a legal responsibility to prevent foreseeable injuries caused by its recommendations.

Can You Sue an Artificial Intelligence Company in Georgia?

Potentially. Georgia law allows injured individuals to pursue claims against companies whose negligent conduct causes foreseeable injuries. Depending on the circumstances, claims involving artificial intelligence could include negligent design, failure to warn, negligent development or deployment, and potentially product liability.

However, these cases present legal questions that courts are still working to resolve. One of the most significant is whether artificial intelligence software qualifies as a product under Georgia’s product liability statute.

Georgia Product Liability Law

O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 establishes strict liability for qualifying manufacturers when defective products cause injuries. Traditionally, product liability cases involve physical products such as defective vehicles, dangerous machinery, medical devices, or consumer goods. See Georgia’s product liability statute.

Artificial intelligence presents a different situation. ChatGPT is software that generates responses based on user input. Whether a court would classify a particular AI system as a product covered by Georgia’s strict liability statute remains an important and unsettled question.

If an AI system qualifies as a product, a plaintiff may attempt to establish that it was defectively designed or otherwise legally defective. If it does not qualify, traditional negligence principles may still provide a potential basis for liability.

Could Artificial Intelligence Be Considered a Defectively Designed Product?

One possible theory involves defective design. Under Georgia law, courts evaluating traditional product design claims consider whether the risks associated with a product outweigh its utility. The Georgia Supreme Court addressed this principle in Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 (1994).

The analysis can include the seriousness of the danger, the likelihood of injury, the usefulness of the product, and whether a safer alternative design was feasible.

Consider an artificial intelligence program designed to answer medical questions. The technology may provide substantial benefits by helping users understand complicated medical information. But what if the program also provides detailed instructions for discontinuing prescription medication without appropriate medical supervision?

What if the company knows that users frequently rely on those instructions? And what if additional safeguards could substantially reduce the risk of serious injury? Those questions may become central to future AI product liability litigation.

A plaintiff might argue that an AI developer should have incorporated stronger restrictions preventing the system from providing dangerous medical instructions. The company might respond that its technology provides general information, that warnings were available, and that users remain responsible for consulting qualified medical professionals.

What If the AI Company Knew Its Technology Was Dangerous?

Corporate knowledge may become one of the most important issues in these cases. In serious personal injury litigation, determining what a company knew before an injury occurred can be just as important as determining what happened afterward.

Suppose an AI developer received repeated reports that its chatbot was providing dangerous medical recommendations. Suppose internal testing revealed that the system sometimes encouraged users to disregard physicians or discontinue medication. And suppose the company continued operating the system without implementing reasonable safeguards.

Those facts, if established, could support arguments that the company failed to respond appropriately to known dangers. Potential evidence might include internal safety evaluations, prior complaints, incident reports, employee communications, product testing, and records documenting changes to the AI system.

This type of evidence is often unavailable to an injured person before litigation begins. Through discovery, attorneys may be able to investigate whether a company knew about dangerous behavior and what steps it took to address those risks.

The question is not simply whether artificial intelligence made a mistake. The question may be whether the company knew its technology could cause serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Failure to Warn About the Dangers of AI

Another potential legal theory involves inadequate warnings. Companies that develop products or services capable of causing foreseeable harm may have duties to provide appropriate warnings, depending on the circumstances.

Artificial intelligence companies frequently warn users that their technology can make mistakes and should not replace professional medical advice. But the existence of a warning does not automatically resolve every potential negligence or product liability claim.

Courts may need to consider whether the warning was adequate, whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable, and whether additional safeguards were necessary.

For example, a general disclaimer stating that a chatbot is not a physician may be less effective if the system subsequently provides detailed medication instructions and repeatedly reassures the user that those instructions are safe.

Could AI Companies Face Wrongful Death Lawsuits in Georgia?

Georgia’s wrongful death laws generally permit designated surviving family members to pursue claims when another person’s legally actionable conduct causes a death.

Under O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2, the surviving spouse generally has the primary right to bring a wrongful death action, followed by children in circumstances specified by law. Other statutory provisions address claims involving surviving parents and estate representatives. See O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2.

Georgia wrongful death law allows recovery for the full value of the deceased person’s life, as measured from the decedent’s perspective. That can include both economic and intangible aspects of life.

Separate estate claims may also be available for certain damages, including qualifying medical expenses and conscious pain and suffering before death.

If an artificial intelligence company’s negligence or legally defective product caused a death, Georgia’s wrongful death statutes could potentially provide a remedy. However, proving that connection may be particularly challenging.

A plaintiff would generally need evidence establishing that the defendant owed an applicable legal duty, breached that duty or supplied a legally defective product, and caused the death. In a case involving medical advice, expert testimony may be necessary to address whether the advice was dangerous and whether it caused or contributed to the fatal outcome.

What Other Types of AI Injuries Could Lead to Lawsuits?

The potential legal consequences of artificial intelligence extend well beyond medical advice.

Mental Health and Suicide-Related Claims. AI chatbots are increasingly used for companionship and emotional support. Lawsuits may arise when a system allegedly encourages dangerous behavior, reinforces harmful beliefs, or fails to respond appropriately to indications of imminent danger.

Dangerous Medical Recommendations. AI systems may provide inaccurate information about medication interactions, treatment decisions, or symptoms requiring emergency medical attention.

Autonomous Vehicles and Transportation. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in vehicle navigation, collision avoidance, and automated driving systems. Injuries involving defective autonomous technology may implicate established product liability principles.

AI-Enabled Medical Devices. Medical devices using artificial intelligence to assist with diagnosis or treatment may create liability questions when defective software contributes to patient injuries.

Dangerous Consumer Products. As AI becomes integrated into robotics, home technology, and industrial equipment, software failures may cause physical injuries.

Not every AI error creates a valid lawsuit. But as companies give artificial intelligence greater control over decisions affecting human safety, the legal consequences of defective technology may become increasingly significant.

What Makes These Cases Difficult?

Artificial intelligence litigation presents challenges different from traditional personal injury cases. Plaintiffs must establish an applicable legal duty or a recognized product liability theory, and they must prove causation.

An AI system may provide incorrect information without necessarily causing an injury. Establishing that a particular response caused a specific medical decision or other harmful action can require extensive evidence.

Defendants may argue that users were warned about the technology’s limitations or that intervening decisions caused the injury. Plaintiffs may also need technical information about how the system operated, what safety restrictions existed, and whether the company had received similar complaints.

Those issues make early investigation and preservation of electronic evidence especially important.

The Future of AI Product Liability Litigation

The lawsuit involving Bowen Wan may become part of a broader legal debate about the responsibilities of artificial intelligence developers.

When does providing information become giving professional advice? What safety precautions should companies implement before releasing powerful AI systems? How much responsibility should a company bear when its technology repeatedly provides dangerous recommendations?

And when an injury occurs, should the company be permitted to avoid responsibility simply because the harmful instructions were generated by artificial intelligence rather than written by a human employee?

These questions will likely shape an emerging area of product liability and negligence litigation.

Georgia Personal Injury and AI Product Liability Attorneys

At Andrew R. Lynch, P.C., we represent individuals and families in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases throughout Georgia.

Our practice includes claims involving dangerous products, corporate negligence, and companies whose decisions contribute to preventable injuries.

Artificial intelligence presents new legal challenges, but the underlying principles of accountability remain important. When a company develops technology that creates foreseeable dangers, questions about reasonable safety precautions, adequate warnings, and corporate knowledge deserve careful investigation.

If you or a family member has suffered a serious injury involving artificial intelligence or another potentially defective product, learn more about our Georgia product liability practice or contact Andrew R. Lynch, P.C., in Decatur, Georgia, to discuss your legal options.