Priest sues ChatGPT for advising him to rely on God while treating an illness

In Florida, former pastor Scott Winters filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, claiming that ChatGPT’s advice nearly cost him his life. According to the man, he spent several months turning to the chatbot with complaints of dizziness, weakness and other worrying symptoms, while the AI convinced him that there was no need to seek urgent medical attention. Instead, ChatGPT allegedly recommended getting more rest, limiting physical activity and even using religious phrasing, including: «God did not create your body to break down endlessly».

According to the lawsuit, the man followed these recommendations and spent a great deal of time in a recliner. He later developed a severe pulmonary embolism — a dangerous condition that required emergency hospitalization. Doctors said that prolonged inactivity may have been one of the causes of the blood clots. The plaintiff claims that if he had sought medical assistance earlier, the serious consequences could have been avoided.

The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of negligence and seeks compensation for damages, as well as the implementation of additional safety mechanisms. The demands include mandatory termination of the conversation and a recommendation to seek emergency medical assistance immediately if a user describes symptoms resembling potentially life-threatening conditions. In addition, the plaintiff is asking for the launch of new medical features in ChatGPT to be suspended until an independent safety audit has been conducted.

Commenting on the situation, OpenAI said that ChatGPT is not a doctor and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical care. The company stressed that the system is intended only to provide general information and that users should consult qualified professionals whenever they experience serious symptoms.

The case has become one of the highest-profile lawsuits involving medical advice from artificial intelligence. It once again raises the question of where the line lies between informational assistance and actual medical consultation, as well as who should be held responsible when a user makes decisions based on the answers provided by an AI system.