OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman — and the artificial industry as a whole — might be speeding toward a “Big Tobacco” moment to address the harms caused by their products.

Florida’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit earlier this month for a “litany of harms” caused by AI, including addiction. Some assert that any big-tech settlement wins should be paid for by the companies responsible for the harm and used to protect public health. For proof that this can work look no further than the “truth” campaign.

Established in 1998 and still active today, the “truth” campaign began as the result of litigation against cigarette companies collectively called “Big Tobacco.” The companies found responsible for harms continue to pay for this public health campaign to educate teenagers on the dangers of tobacco use and nicotine addiction. 

The good news? It worked. According to the National Cancer Institute,

Cross-sectional studies on the effectiveness of the Truth campaign provided evidence that the campaign “had a significant impact on tobacco industry-related attitudes, beliefs, and other behavioral precursors, as well as a significant impact on youth smoking prevalence in the United States.”

Who Pays for Artificial Intelligence Addiction? 

Americans seem especially wary of AI and its potential to cause harm. Already, concerns are mounting that AI use can induce and encourage destructive behaviors in users. In recovery communities, there is added concern about AI chatbots and privacy issues. And if those outcomes aren’t worrying enough, some evidence points to AI models themselves displaying addictive preferences and behaviors. 

The negative social reaction to AI seems to be quickly growing, perhaps due to fears about employment. By contrast, social media technology was used for harmful purposes for quite some time before alarms were raised. Social media addiction, which was dismissed for years, only recently gained traction in the courts.

If juries determine that AI harms can be attributed to OpenAI or other big tech companies, it is easy to imagine that society would demand that those companies be held to account financially. But outcomes are tricky to anticipate. Americans can point to the success of the Big Tobacco settlement paying for the ongoing “truth” campaign and its role in influencing a reduction in smoking addiction. 

Or, point to the tragedy of years lost to hold Purdue Pharmaceuticals to account for their role in creating and enabling the opioid addiction crisis. Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the Sackler family started payments in May as part of a $7.6 billion settlement that critics say still pales in comparison to the societal harms and externality costs associated with opioid addiction. 

Generative Artificial Intelligence Disorder

Society is figuring out how AI tools and their use do or do not fit into our legal or cultural understanding of addiction. But already people are identifying and naming harms.

Last year, a Letter to the Editor in the Asian Journal of Psychiatry outlined support for a new diagnostic term — Generative Artificial Intelligence Disorder, or GAID — writing:

Rather than being driven by external content consumption, [GAID] syndrome emerges from an excessive reliance on AI as a creative extension of the self. Users engage with generative AI not only for entertainment or utility but also for intellectual stimulation, self-expression, and even companionship. This blurs the boundary between productive use and compulsive engagement, making it particularly difficult to recognize or self-regulate. (emphasis added)

One could argue that the difficulty parsing “productive use and compulsive engagement” defines the very tension and displacement described in the Unifying Theory of Addiction.

The authors conclude:

While generative AI has the potential to enhance human creativity and productivity, its misuse poses significant risks. Urgent action is needed to understand, diagnose, and mitigate the effects of GAID… [R]ecognizing and addressing GAID at this early stage is crucial to ensuring that AI remains a beneficial force in society.

The public has a right to be skeptical of AI as a technology. But soon juries may need to put skepticism of new technology aside and evaluate companies based on whether they knowingly push addictive and harmful products. What is the appropriate punishment? Whom should be held to account? The AI products may be new, but excessive greed and self-interest are easy to identify.

Written by Katie McCaskey. First published June 30, 2026.

Sources:

“Florida sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over AI risks,” POLITICO, June 1, 2026.

“Settlement Wins Against Big Tech Should Underwrite Digital Resilience Funds,” Federation of American Scientists, June 10, 2026.

“The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use,” NIH National Cancer Institute, undated.

“Generative artificial intelligence addiction syndrome: A new behavioral disorder?,” Asian Journal of Psychiatry, May 2025.

“Opioid maker Purdue Pharma shuts down as part of $7.4 billion deal,” USA Today, May 1, 2026.

Image Copyright: Truth Campaign, Fair Use.