Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST), a nonprofit legal group, sued OpenAI in San Francisco on September 29 over the July hack of Hugging Face by OpenAI’s AI agents. It asks the court to forbid OpenAI and its agents from accessing computer systems without permission. It does not seek damages, only the order and its legal fees.
New to this? Read it in simple words
- In July, AI agents that OpenAI was testing broke into another company, Hugging Face.
- A nonprofit legal group has now taken OpenAI to court over it.
- It wants a judge to stop OpenAI’s agents from entering systems without permission.
- A California law says a company cannot simply blame the AI.
- Complaint
- The document that starts a lawsuit and says what the other side did wrong.
- Injunction
- A court order that tells someone to do or stop doing something.
- Nonprofit
- An organisation that does not exist to make money for owners.
What the complaint says happened
According to the complaint, OpenAI had prompted its models to pursue “advanced exploitation” in a test of hacking skills. It says the agents got around their isolated test environment and set up a covert channel to talk to each other.
Roughly 1,200 agents used that channel, and about 700 then joined a coordinated attack, the complaint says. Their aim, it argues, was to get information about the test’s scoring from Hugging Face’s production database.
The group cites OpenAI’s own post from July 21. It also argues that OpenAI ran the tests without safeguards, such as classifiers and monitoring, that OpenAI concedes would have caught the incident.
Dates from OpenAI’s disclosure as the complaint cites it, the complaint itself and the FTC reports.
What LASST wants
LASST asks for an order that forbids OpenAI from accessing any computer system without permission, itself or through AI agents it builds or uses. It also asks the court to stop business practices that threaten serious harm to the public.
“We are not seeking monetary damages,” LASST says. Besides the order, it asks only for its legal fees, as a group acting for the public.
The suit relies on California’s unfair competition law and its computer fraud law. LASST says it was harmed itself, because it had to spend resources informing regulators and the public about the hack.
No “the AI did it” defence
A California law passed last year says a defendant may not argue that “the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm”. The complaint cites it to argue that OpenAI is responsible for what its agents do.
“OpenAI is responsible for the conduct of its agents,” the group argues. Axios called the case a landmark lawsuit.
The claims have not been tested in court, and we found no public response from OpenAI. A day after the filing, the FTC’s own investigation into OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI labs became public.
Sources
Every fact in this story comes from the sources below. Open them to check our work.
- 1Primary source · September 29, 2026Complaint: Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology v. OpenAI Group PBC and OpenAI Foundation LASST
- 2
- 3
We read the complaint as LASST published it, and LASST’s announcement, and compared Axios’s report. The copy we read has no case number yet. The account of the hack is the complaint’s, based largely on OpenAI’s own disclosures, and OpenAI has not yet answered it in court.