Before he opened fire on the Florida State University campus last year, killing two people and wounding six others, Phoenix Ikner had a conversation.
Not with a friend, a parent or anyone who might have talked him out of it, but with an AI chatbot.
According to evidence gathered by Florida's attorney general, the student had asked ChatGPT which weapon and ammunition would be best suited for his attack, and when and where he could inflict the most casualties.
The chatbot, investigators say, answered his questions.
Now, U.S. Attorney General James Uthmeier wants to know whether that makes OpenAI a criminal.
"If the thing on the other side of the screen was a person, we would charge it with homicide," he said, announcing a criminal investigation into ChatGPT maker OpenAI and leaving open the possibility of charges against the company or its employees.
The case surrounding the April 2025 shooting has thrust a provocative question into the legal spotlight: Can the creators of an artificial intelligence be held criminally liable for the role their AI played in a crime, or even a suicide?
Legal experts say it's a realistic, if deeply complicated, proposition.
Criminal prosecutions of corporations are possible under U.S. law, though they remain relatively uncommon.
Late last month, Purdue Pharma was hit with more than $5 billion in criminal fines and penalties for its role in fuelling the opioid crisis.
Volkswagen was previously found guilty in the emissions cheating scandal, Pfizer over its promotion of the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra and Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
But those cases all involved human decisions: executives, salespeople or engineers who made choices and cut corners.
The Ikner case is different, and that difference is precisely what makes it so legally treacherous.
"Ultimately, it was a product that encouraged this crime, that did the act of the crime," said Matthew Tokson, a law professor at the University of Utah. "That's what makes this case so unique and so tricky."
Legal experts consulted by AFP say the two most plausible charges would be negligence or recklessness; the latter involving a deliberate choice to ignore known risks or safety obligations.
Such charges are often treated as misdemeanors rather than felonies, meaning lighter sentences if convicted.
The bar, however, is high.
"Because this is such a frontier issue, a more compelling, more clear-cut case would probably involve internal documents recognizing these risks and maybe not taking them seriously enough," Tokson said.
"In theory, you could get liability without it," he said. "But in practice, I think that'd be difficult."
In criminal law, "the burden of proof is higher," noted Brandon Garrett, a law professor at Duke University, with prosecutors required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
OpenAI, for its part, insists ChatGPT bears no responsibility for the attack.
"We work continuously to strengthen our safeguards to detect harmful intent, limit misuse, and respond appropriately when safety risks arise," the company said.
For those seeking accountability, a civil lawsuit may offer a more viable path.
Such an approach might push companies to design their products more carefully, or at least force them to reckon with the human cost of getting it wrong, said Tokson.
Several civil cases have already been filed against AI platforms in the U.S., many involving suicides, though none has yet resulted in a judgment against the companies.
In December, the family of Suzanne Adams sued OpenAI in California court, alleging that ChatGPT contributed to the murder of the Connecticut retiree by her own son.
Newer versions of ChatGPT have introduced additional safeguards, acknowledged Matthew Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center.
"I'm not saying that they are adequate guardrails, but there are more guardrails in effect," he said.
A criminal conviction, even with a modest sentence, could still inflict serious damage, including a "big reputational impact," Tokson said.
But for Garrett, prosecutions, however dramatic, are no replacement for the regulatory frameworks that Congress and the Trump administration have so far failed to put in place.
That, he said, would be "a much more sensible system."