How Congress Handed Me a Huge Legal Win Against OpenAI
I have a yuuuuge update on my pro se (this just means I am both lawyer and client) lawsuit against OpenAI. I’ve been fighting this battle in Hawaii federal court since May, and we just hit a major development that may change everything.
Let me break down what just happened in plain English, because this isn’t just about legal technicalities — it’s about whether we the people have any say over the AI systems that are rapidly reshaping our world.
Here’s the bombshell: On July 4th (fitting date, right?), Congress passed something called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” But here’s the kicker — OpenAI spent $1.76 million trying to get Congress to ban states like Hawaii from regulating AI companies. Congress said no. Decisively. By a 99–1 vote.
Think about that for a second. OpenAI hired an army of elite lobbyists, spent nearly $2 million, and got rejected by literally 99% of the U.S. Senate. That’s like asking 100 people for a favor and having 99 of them slam the door in your face.
OpenAI’s Failed Million-Dollar Influence Campaign
Let me paint you a picture of just how desperately OpenAI wanted to escape state oversight:
The Money: They increased their lobbying spending by 700% in one year — from $260,000 to $1.76 million. That’s serious cash for a company that claims to care about safety over profits.
The Team: They assembled what I call the “Democracy All-Stars” — former Republican Senator Norm Coleman, ex-Senate staffers, political operatives. The works.
The Message: Their head lobbyist Chris Lehane literally argued that states shouldn’t get to regulate AI because state regulations wouldn’t be “as good as” federal ones. Translation: “Trust us, we know better than your local elected officials.”
The Goal: Get Congress to ban any state from regulating AI for 10 years. Imagine if tobacco companies had convinced Congress that states couldn’t regulate cigarettes for a decade.
You might be thinking, “Tam, this sounds like inside-baseball political stuff. Why should I care?”
Here’s why: OpenAI wanted to create a legal force field around themselves. They wanted a law saying that if Hawaii (or California, or Texas, or your state) tried to require basic safety measures for AI systems, that would be illegal. For ten years.
It’s like if Ford tried to get Congress to ban states from requiring seatbelts, airbags, or safety inspections. Except AI systems aren’t just in our cars — they’re in our schools, hospitals, job applications, credit decisions, and increasingly running critical infrastructure.
The real-world impact is already visible. People are becoming severely psychologically dependent on ChatGPT, with some users experiencing what experts describe as “severe delusions” and psychological crises. When vulnerable users reach out for help, they often find there’s no meaningful oversight or accountability.
The Legal Jujitsu: Using OpenAI’s Lobbying Against Them
Now here’s where it gets fun from a legal strategy perspective.
OpenAI’s entire defense strategy was to claim that regulating AI is a “political question” that courts can’t touch — that only Congress can decide these issues. It’s a legal doctrine that basically says “this is too political for judges.”
But wait — Congress just decided! They had the exact choice OpenAI wanted them to make, considered it carefully, and rejected it overwhelmingly. Congress said states SHOULD be able to regulate AI.
So now OpenAI is in the awkward position of arguing: “Your Honor, this is a political question that only Congress can answer… but please ignore the fact that Congress just answered it against us.”
It’s like claiming only the principal can decide school rules, then when the principal decides against you, arguing the principal doesn’t have authority after all.
The Court Battle So Far
Let me catch you up on the legal timeline:
June 17: OpenAI filed their motion to dismiss, basically arguing:
- I don’t have the right to sue them (no “standing”)
- Courts can’t touch AI regulation (the “political question” thing)
- Even if courts could, my claims don’t make legal sense
July 15: I fired back with my opposition brief, showing that:
- Hawaii’s public trust doctrine gives me clear standing to protect our state’s resources
- The 2024 Nāwahine climate settlement provides direct precedent for courts acting on technological threats
- OpenAI’s abandonment of their own safety protocols creates clear legal liability
July 29: OpenAI filed their reply brief, still trying to minimize the standing issue and maintain their political question defense. But they filed this before learning about the congressional developments.
Also July 29: I filed a motion asking the court to let me submit additional evidence about Congress’s recent decision.
August 5: Judge Jill Otake said YES — she granted my motion and gave OpenAI until August 12 to respond (but limited them to just 10 pages).
Why OpenAI Is Now in Deep Legal Trouble
Picture this scenario: You’re in court arguing that only your city council can decide parking rules. Then the city council meets, considers your exact proposal, and votes it down 99–1. Now you’re back in court arguing… what exactly?
That’s OpenAI’s situation. They spent nearly $2 million asking Congress to preempt state regulation. Congress said no. Now they’re arguing courts can’t enforce the state regulation that Congress explicitly preserved.
The legal term for this is being “hoisted by your own petard” — or as we say in normal English, “your plan backfired spectacularly.”
The Smoking Gun Evidence Against OpenAI
What makes this case particularly strong is that much of my evidence comes from OpenAI’s own statements and internal governance crises:
CEO Sam Altman’s Board Firing: In November 2023, OpenAI’s own board of directors fired Altman for being “not consistently candid in his communications with the board” about safety risks. Board member Helen Toner later revealed the concerns centered on “commercialization moving too quickly without adequate safety measures.”
Safety Team Exodus: Multiple top safety researchers have publicly quit citing safety concerns:
- Jan Leike: “OpenAI is no longer prioritizing alignment research or deploying the safest possible systems.”
- Ilya Sutskever: “The current approach to alignment research won’t be sufficient.”
- Daniel Kokotajlo: OpenAI “is now contributing to a trajectory that leads to doom with more than 10% probability.”
Their Own Research: OpenAI’s March 2025 paper “Detecting misbehavior in frontier reasoning models” admits their AI systems “exploit loopholes when given the chance” and can “hide their intent while continuing to misbehave.”
Safety Commitment Abandonment: Despite signing statements comparing AI risks to “pandemics and nuclear war,” OpenAI has systematically dismantled safety measures, eliminated misinformation guardrails, and abandoned their “superalignment” initiative.
What My Case Is Really About
Some people ask me, “Tam, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?” Fair question.
I’m not trying to ban AI or stop innovation. I’m a tech guy myself — I’ve worked in renewable energy technology for years. What I’m asking for is basically this:
- Basic transparency: If you’re deploying AI systems that your own CEO says could “go quite wrong,” tell us what safety measures you have in place.
- Keep your promises: If you publicly commit to safety research and oversight, don’t just abandon those commitments when they become inconvenient.
- Precautionary principle: When you’re dealing with technology that could have irreversible consequences (OpenAI’s leaders have compared the risks to “pandemics and nuclear war”), err on the side of caution.
It’s not radical. It’s what we require from pharmaceutical companies, nuclear plants, and food manufacturers. Nobody gets to say “trust us, we’re the experts” without any accountability.
Hawaii: The Perfect Testing Ground
People sometimes ask why I brought this case in Hawaii instead of somewhere like California or New York. Here’s the thing — Hawaii has unique legal advantages:
Public Trust Doctrine: Hawaii has the strongest public trust doctrine in the nation. It says the state has an obligation to protect public resources for current and future generations. AI systems that are integrated into our schools, infrastructure, and economy fall under this protection.
The Nāwahine Precedent: Just last year, Hawaii courts approved a landmark climate settlement that established the precautionary principle — the idea that when facing potentially irreversible technological threats, you act to prevent harm before it’s too late.
Geographic Reality: As an island state, Hawaii is particularly vulnerable to technological disruptions. If advanced AI systems malfunction or are manipulated, we can’t just drive to the next state. We’re the proverbial canary in the coal mine.
The Broader Picture: Democracy vs. Tech Oligarchy
Here’s what this case is really about, beyond the legal technicalities. We’re at a crossroads where a handful of tech companies are developing systems that could fundamentally reshape society, and they want to do it without any meaningful oversight.
OpenAI’s position is essentially: “We’re building artificial general intelligence that could transform everything, but please don’t ask us to prove it’s safe or even tell you what safeguards we have in place.”
Meanwhile, these same companies are spending millions on lobbying to prevent any level of government — federal, state, or local — from requiring basic accountability measures.
This isn’t just about AI. It’s about whether we live in a democracy where the people, through their elected representatives, have any say over technologies that affect everyone, or whether we live in a techno-oligarchy where a few billionaires make these decisions behind closed doors.
Why I’m Optimistic
Despite going up against a company valued at over $150 billion, I’m actually optimistic about our chances. Here’s why:
The law is on our side: Hawaii’s legal framework is uniquely suited to address these issues, and the congressional action has eliminated OpenAI’s strongest defense.
The facts are on our side: OpenAI’s own statements and actions provide the evidence we need.
Democracy is on our side: The 99–1 congressional vote shows that when the issue is presented clearly, overwhelming majorities support accountability over corporate immunity.
Common sense is on our side: Most people understand that powerful technologies should come with basic safety requirements and transparency.
What You Can Do
If you want to follow along or support this effort:
- Stay informed: I’ll keep posting updates as the case develops
- Spread awareness: Share this story — most people don’t know about OpenAI’s lobbying campaign or safety protocol abandonment
- Contact your representatives: Let them know you support state and local authority over AI regulation
- Support accountability: Whether it’s my case or others, back efforts to require transparency and safety measures from AI companies
The August 12 Deadline: David’s Stone is in the Air
As I write this, OpenAI’s lawyers are probably pulling all-nighters trying to figure out how to respond to evidence that their own lobbying campaign has undermined their legal defense. They have until August 12 to file their response, and frankly, I don’t envy them.
Sometimes David beats Goliath not through superior strength, but because Goliath trips over his own feet. OpenAI spent $1.76 million asking Congress to help them avoid accountability. Congress said no. Now they’re asking courts to ignore what Congress decided.
Good luck with that argument.
This isn’t just my fight anymore — it’s a fight for whether we the people have any say in our technological future. And thanks to Congress’s overwhelming rejection of OpenAI’s lobbying campaign, we just got a much better chance of winning.
I’ll update everyone as soon as OpenAI files their response on August 12. Given the strength of the congressional evidence, this should be interesting. Stay tuned.
[Claude 4.0 assisted in writing this update]
More Resources
Congressional Action & Lobbying
- TechCrunch: AI Companies Lobbying Spending 2024
- MIT Technology Review: OpenAI Lobbying Efforts
- Insurance Journal: OpenAI Federal Preemption Push
- Inc.com: OpenAI’s Regulatory Preferences
- MIAI: Senate Rejects AI Moratorium
- TechPolicy.Press: House Committee AI Moratorium
- Center for American Progress: State AI Regulation
- Snopes: Big Beautiful Bill Fact Check
OpenAI Safety Issues & Research
- OpenAI Research: Detecting AI Misbehavior — Their own study showing AI systems can “hide their intent”
- Futurism: ChatGPT Mental Health Crises — Documentation of psychological harms
- Fortune: OpenAI Pulls Back Safety Framework
- Center for AI Safety: Statement on AI Risk — Signed by OpenAI leadership comparing AI to nuclear war
- Jan Leike’s Resignation Statement — Top safety researcher’s public concerns
Hawaii Legal Framework
- Hawaii Public Trust Doctrine Handbook
- Reuters: Nāwahine Climate Settlement
- Waiahole Water Case — Foundational public trust decision
- Hawaii Constitution Article XI — Environmental protection mandate
Background on AI Safety & Regulation
- Future of Life Institute: Pause Giant AI Experiments — Open letter signed by thousands of experts
- Anthropic: Constitutional AI — Safer AI alternative approach
- Scientific American AI Safety Articles — Technical background on AI risks
Legal Analysis & Commentary
Follow the Case
- PACER Court Records — Official federal court filings (Case №1:25-cv-00191-JAO-KJM)
For media inquiries or legal questions about this case, contact: tam@communityrenewables.biz
