Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

AI-Induced Psychosis and Mental Health

The Wrong Verb: Etiological Framing and the AI Psychosis Litigation

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Legal research article.

Written
July 2026
Version
v1
Pages
17
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

Seven product liability actions filed against OpenAI in California in November 2025 allege that a chatbot caused psychotic episodes in their users. The peer-reviewed clinical literature on which those claims must ultimately rest does not use that verb. Across research groups at UCSF, Aarhus, the Université de Montréal, and UCLA, investigators describe AI as inducing, triggering, amplifying, or exacerbating psychotic states in vulnerable users, and expressly decline the causal claim. The pleadings have committed to an etiological proposition their own evidentiary base rejects. This Article argues that the causal framing is a strategic error, and that the error is avoidable. It identifies four etiological relations implicit in the clinical literature, derivation, induction, triggering, and exacerbation, and shows that none is but-for causation and that none needs to be. Because specific causation evidence is admissible only after general causation is established, a complaint pitched at the individual level fails at the threshold rather than at trial. Because the eggshell plaintiff rule reaches aggravation and places the burden of apportionment on the defendant, the convergence of vulnerability and exposure is a defense the plaintiff can meet rather than one the plaintiff must avoid. And because the disability statutes turn on meaningful access rather than on the origin of the disability, they do not require the verb at all, subject to a circuit split on the availability of disparate impact under Section 504 that plaintiffs’ counsel must plead around rather than through. The Article develops the fixity of the belief as the boundary condition of the whole account, distinguishing the cases these theories should reach from the cases they should not, and closes with a worked analysis of Brooks v. OpenAI, Inc., whose complaint pleads the one etiological relation its own alleged facts do not support.

Keywords

  • AI-induced psychosis
  • artificial intelligence liability
  • etiological framing
  • general and specific causation
  • Section 504 disparate impact
  • failure to warn
  • learned intermediary doctrine
  • eggshell plaintiff rule
  • apportionment of damages
  • design defect
  • sycophancy
  • product liability pleading

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of The Wrong Verb: Etiological Framing and the AI Psychosis LitigationOpen the 22-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Wrong Verb: Etiological Framing and the AI Psychosis Litigation." Real Safety AI Foundation Legal Research Article, July 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/896t2k/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (48)

This paper cites its sources in footnotes. Each authority is listed once, where it is first cited, with its footnote number.

  1. Footnote 1.ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 5431.
  2. Footnote 1.Raine v. OpenAI, Inc., No. CGC-25-628528.
  3. Footnote 2.Brooks v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 25STCV32386 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. filed Nov. 6, 2025).
  4. Footnote 3.Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 572 (1994).
  5. Footnote 3.Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 968–69 (1997).
  6. Footnote 4.Joseph M. Pierre et al., “You’re Not Crazy”: A Case of New-onset AI-associated Psychosis, 22 Innovations Clinical Neuroscience 11, 11 (2025).
  7. Footnote 5.Alexandre Hudon & Émmanuel Stip, Delusional Experiences Emerging from AI Chatbot Interactions or “AI Psychosis,” 12 JMIR Mental Health e85799 (2025).
  8. Footnote 6.Søren Dinesen Østergaard, Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Delusions: From Guesswork to Emerging Cases, 152 Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 257, 258 (2025).
  9. Footnote 11.Alaina V. Burns et al., “The Algorithm Is Hacked”: Analysis of Technology Delusions in a Modern-Day Cohort, Brit. J. Psychiatry 1, 3 (2025).
  10. Footnote 12.Sidse Godske Olsen, Christian Jon Reinecke-Tellefsen & Søren Dinesen Østergaard, Potentially Harmful Consequences of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbot Use Among Patients with Mental Illness: Early Data from a Large Psychiatric Service System, 153 Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 301 (2026).
  11. Footnote 14.Myra Cheng et al., Sycophantic AI Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Dependence, 391 Science (2026).
  12. Footnote 16.Kartik Chandra, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley & Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians (Feb. 22, 2026) (unpublished manuscript), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.19141.
  13. Footnote 19.Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 110–15 (5th ed., text rev. 2022).
  14. Footnote 22.David B. Arciniegas, Psychosis, 21 Continuum 715, 719 (2015).
  15. Footnote 23.Jennifer Dork, Eugene Dimenstein & Lawrence Burns, Overvalued Ideas: Conceptual Analysis and Literature Review, 16 Behav. Scis. 708 (2026)
  16. Footnote 23.P.J. McKenna, Disorders with Overvalued Ideas, 145 Brit. J. Psychiatry 579, 583 (1984).
  17. Footnote 24.Ana Catalán et al., “Short” Versus “Long” Duration of Untreated Psychosis in People with First-Episode Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 51 Schizophrenia Bull. 1206, 1206 (2025).
  18. Footnote 25.Kolbrun Kristinsdottir, Mark Freestone & Alan Underwood, Pathological Fixation on Shared Beliefs, 16 Frontiers Psychiatry (2025).
  19. Footnote 26.Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex. 1997)).
  20. Footnote 27.Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 21 Cal. 4th 71, 79–80 (1999).
  21. Footnote 29.Sargon Enters., Inc. v. Univ. of S. Cal., 55 Cal. 4th 747, 771–72 (2012)
  22. Footnote 29.Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 214 Cal. App. 4th 173, 189 (2013).
  23. Footnote 31.Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985)
  24. Footnote 31.Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  25. Footnote 34.Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729, 738 (9th Cir. 2021).
  26. Footnote 35.Doe v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., 926 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We now resolve what Choate did not and conclude that § 504 does not prohibit disparate-impact discrimination.”)
  27. Footnote 35.Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001)
  28. Footnote 35.Crocker v. Runyon, 207 F.3d 314, 321 (6th Cir. 2000).
  29. Footnote 36.Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 219–22 (2022).
  30. Footnote 37.Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 169 F.4th 971, 977–79 (9th Cir. 2026)
  31. Footnote 37.J.W. v. Coweta Cnty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.4th 1309, 1315–16 (11th Cir. 2024).
  32. Footnote 39.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.
  33. Footnote 40.McKinnon v. Kwong Wah Rest., 83 F.3d 498, 506 (1st Cir. 1996).
  34. Footnote 41.Wakefield v. NLRB, 779 F.2d 1437, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
  35. Footnote 42.Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287, 1294 (8th Cir. 1997).
  36. Footnote 46.Thomas P. Warrington & J. Michael Bostwick, Psychiatric Adverse Effects of Corticosteroids, 81 Mayo Clinic Proc. 1361, 1361 (2006) (“[N]either the presence nor the absence of previous reactions predicts adverse responses to subsequent courses of corticosteroids.”)
  37. Footnote 46.Shalini Arunogiri et al., A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Methamphetamine-Associated Psychosis, 52 Austl. & N.Z. J. Psychiatry 514 (2018).
  38. Footnote 47.367 F.3d 1013, 1016–17 (8th Cir. 2004).
  39. Footnote 48.Christopher v. Cutter Labs., 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (11th Cir. 1995).
  40. Footnote 50.Daly v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725, 736–37 (1978)
  41. Footnote 50.Bostick v. Flex Equip. Co., 147 Cal. App. 4th 80, 94 (2007).
  42. Footnote 51.Aguayo v. Crompton & Knowles Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 1032, 1042 (1986).
  43. Footnote 52.Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 177 Cal. App. 4th 700, 717 (2009).
  44. Footnote 53.Wright v. Stang Mfg. Co., 54 Cal. App. 4th 1218, 1235 (1997).
  45. Footnote 54.Hansen v. Sunnyside Prods., Inc., 55 Cal. App. 4th 1497, 1506 (1997).
  46. Footnote 55.Brooks, No. 25STCV32386.
  47. Footnote 56.ChatGPT Product Liability Cases, No. CJC-25-005431 (Cal. Super. Ct. S.F. Cnty. filed July 17, 2026).
  48. Footnote 60.Cal. Evid. Code § 1220

All research