ChatGPT users cannot use the service for tailored legal advice
As of 29 October 2025, ChatGPT’s OpenAI has updated its usage policies to clarify that users cannot use ChatGPT for “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.”
OpenAI has maintained that this does not represent a departure from their company’s terms of use, and that ChatGPT “has never been a substitute for professional legal…advice, but it will continue to be a great resource to help people understand legal…information.”
Nonetheless, OpenAI’s explicit distancing of their product from licensed professional services may have significant consequences for those seeking legal counsel. A recent report by OpenAI with Duke University and Harvard University published in September 2025 has reported statistics on how consumers are engaging with ChatGPT, and which indicates that user growth in professional domains, including law, have shown rapid growth since ChatGPT’s launch in November 2022 and that conversation topics related to practical guidance, writing and seeking information account for approximately 80% of messages with the chatbot.
The results of this publication indicate that many individuals have sought to rely on ChatGPT as a supplement or even alternative to seeking licensed legal advice. This is perhaps unsurprising when ChatGPT offers immediate and accessible answers to complex legal questions entirely for free that might appear, at first glance, to provide correct and detailed information.
However, OpenAI’s policy revisions indicate that the company does seek to distance itself from responsibility for tailored legal advice and follows in the wake of an increasing number of high-profile incidents where the AI has been responsible for legal errors. This has included instances where the chatbot has “hallucinated” false information and presented these as factual. OpenAI’s change in policy may be an acknowledgement by the company that its product is not appropriate as an alternative for a trained specialise, nor for it to provide tailored and specialised advice, and an attempt to waive their company’s responsibility for instances where an individual has relied on ChatGPT for advice and been provided incorrect information.
OpenAI has not sought to distance ChatGPT from its ability to provide general information on any and all complex topics, and its application to help demystify what might otherwise be a daunting field such as law is likely to continue to provide a valuable service to users. However, OpenAI’s policy changes would appear to reflect an acknowledgement their product is no alternative to a licensed professional.
