Innovation AI The Sure Bet That AI Mental Health Lawsuits Won’t Ever See A Jury And Be Settled Out-Of-Court ByLance Eliot, Contributor. Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights. Dr. Lance B. Eliot is a world-renowned AI scientist and consultant. Follow AuthorJan 09, 2026, 03:15am EST The spate of lawsuits about AI and mental health are going to be settled prior to going to trial, here’s why.getty In today’s column, I examine the likely outcome of the various civil lawsuits launched against AI makers for the alleged AI mental health damage involved in litigated self-harm cases. One of the especially early-on notable cases launched in October 2024 has been settled this week out-of-court, along with several similar lawsuits. I have been predicting since day one that, by and large, these lawsuits will never actually go to trial. A jury will not have the opportunity to decide on these somber matters. Instead, negotiated settlements will be the final result. Is this good or bad, right or wrong? Some decry that by settling the cases, society won’t get a chance to ascertain whether the AI makers are being held fully accountable for AI that can presumably psychologically manipulate people. Others insist that, though the cases are clearly tragedies, the best course of action is to continue the rapid pace of AI innovation and, for the good of society, not to get bogged down in potentially emotionally swayed jury-based outcomes. Let’s talk about it.
## AI And Mental Health
As a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI. For an extensive listing of my well-over one hundred analyses and postings, see the link here and the link here. There is little doubt that this is a rapidly developing field and that there are tremendous upsides to be had, but at the same time, regrettably, hidden risks and outright gotchas come into these endeavors, too. I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance on an episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes, see the link here.
## Lawsuits Arising
Background On AI For Mental Health I’d like to set the stage on how generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are typically used in an ad hoc way for mental health guidance. Millions upon millions of people are using generative AI as their ongoing advisor on mental health considerations (note that ChatGPT alone has over 900 million weekly active users, a notable proportion of which dip into mental health aspects, see my analysis at the link here). The top-ranked use of contemporary generative AI and LLMs is to consult with the AI on mental health facets; see my coverage at the link here. This popular usage makes abundant sense. You can access most of the major generative AI systems for nearly free or at a super low cost, doing so anywhere and at any time. Thus, if you have any mental health qualms that you want to chat about, all you need to do is log in to AI and proceed forthwith on a 24/7 basis. There are significant worries that AI can readily go off the rails or otherwise dispense unsuitable or even egregiously inappropriate mental health advice. Banner headlines in August of 2025 accompanied the lawsuit filed against OpenAI for their lack of AI safeguards when it came to providing cognitive advisement. Despite claims by AI makers that they are gradually instituting AI safeguards, there are still a lot of downside risks of the AI doing untoward acts, such as insidiously helping users in co-creating delusions that can lead to self-harm. For my follow-on analysis of details about the OpenAI lawsuit and how AI can foster delusional thinking in humans, see my analysis at the link here. As noted, I have been earnestly predicting that eventually all of the major AI makers will be taken to the woodshed for their paucity of robust AI safeguards. Today’s generic LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and others, are not at all akin to the robust capabilities of human therapists. Meanwhile, specialized LLMs are being built to presumably attain similar qualities, but they are still primarily in the development and testing stages. See my coverage at the link here.
Lawsuits Arising Before the prominent lawsuit against OpenAI that occurred in August of 2025, one of the earliest major lawsuits on modern-era AI and mental health was launched in October 2024. The case was filed in Florida and involved defendants consisting of Google and Character.AI. The plaintiff was the mother of a son who was a minor and sadly ended his own life. He had avidly made use of the Character.AI app and had extensive chats with an AI persona that resembled a main character from the popular “Game of Thrones” series. Enormous attention was given to the lawsuit when it was first launched. All the major media outlets covered the announcement of the suit. It was one of those headline-grabbing stories. A slew of editorials was published that landed on one side or another of the case. Lots of handwringing arose. Meanwhile, the settlement of this case and other similar cases was announced this week on or about January 7, 2025, and has garnered modest media attention or fanfare. It has deflated into a story that no longer seems to be over-the-top newsworthy. That’s a pretty common aspect regarding the settling of lawsuits. A settlement typically keeps the case out of the news stream. It slips under the radar. Similar lawsuits that have been filed in states across the country, including New York, Texas, Colorado, and other states, have similarly been settled or seem to be heading in that direction. Let’s unpack this phenomenon.
## AI Makers Litigation Playbook
I’ve previously laid out in detail the legal defense strategies that AI makers are generally undertaking regarding these AI and mental health lawsuits; see my analysis at the link here. The first step is to express sorrow at the loss of life underlying the lawsuit. On the heels of that expression, the AI maker clarifies that they are blameless and had no part in the matter. The filing of a formal legal response then lays out the myriad legal reasons that the AI maker ought to be considered entirely off-the-hook. An attempt to get the court or judge to toss out the case at the get-go is the initial legal maneuver. That rarely succeeds, but it is a legal move that is standard and fully expected. Most cases continue ahead and start to prepare for the case going to trial. From an AI maker’s perspective, having a case go to trial is indubitably going to cause severe reputational harm. All sorts of internal documents about the design of the AI, AI safeguards, and technological underpinnings are going to be surfaced. Emails and memos that discuss the tradeoffs between spending on AI-related safety aspects versus other features of the AI are going to be aired. The likelihood is that aiming to retain and lock-in users will appear to be prioritized over the safety of the users. It’s a proverbial rats’ nest. The AI developers who were involved in the AI construction were probably unaware that someday their internal missives would see the light of day. Some of the AI builders might have been entirely absent from any second thoughts about the approach being undertaken when devising the AI. Others might have had notable concerns and sought to mention those concerns, but were nixed by managers who were pressuring to get the AI up and running. The attorneys for the plaintiff are bound to find a smoking gun. The attorneys for the AI maker will be aghast. The internal communiques are going to paint a rat
