A US federal judge dismissed on October 20, 2026 a civil lawsuit filed in January 2025 by the sister of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman — Ann Altman. Judge Zachary Blouston of the Eastern District of Missouri issued the ruling "with prejudice" — meaning the case cannot be reconsidered on the same grounds. The reason for dismissal was Ann Altman's three-time failure to appear for a court-ordered independent medical examination.

The ruling was announced on Tuesday, October 20, 2026. The judge noted that the case was dismissed not on the merits of the claims, but as a sanction for a "willful" violation of the discovery process. Sam Altman has denied the allegations from the start. According to Reuters, Ann Altman's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment at publication time.

Details of the ruling

According to court documents, Ann Altman was repeatedly warned about her obligation to undergo the independent medical examination, but did not appear at any of the three scheduled appointments. In the judge's assessment, these actions constitute a willful violation of discovery rules, so the harshest sanction was applied — dismissal of the case.

Missouri Eastern District federal judge Zachary Blouston dismissed Ann Altman's lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman "with prejudice" — without the possibility of reconsideration — because she three times failed to appear for a court-ordered independent medical examination.

In US federal court practice, a party can be compelled to undergo a court-ordered independent medical examination — especially when the case involves health-related matters. The results of such an examination are submitted to the court and considered as evidence in the case. Noncompliance with a court order is assessed as a violation of discovery rules; in such cases the court has the right to impose sanctions ranging from fines to full dismissal of the case. This time the judge chose the harshest measure.

The legal term "with prejudice" means the case cannot be refiled on the same grounds. This order is not the court's conclusion about the correctness of the allegations — it is applied as a final measure for violating procedural rules.

History of the lawsuit and parties' positions

The lawsuit was filed in January 2025. The documents alleged repeated instances of sexual abuse during the period 1997–2006. Sam Altman denies the allegations and has rejected them in family statements.

The Altman family said Ann Altman has difficulties related to mental health and that she receives financial support. In the family's joint statement of January 2025, the claims were called "utterly false".

After filing, the case ran for nearly two years, during which the parties went through the discovery phase. The court based its dismissal decision on the failure to meet obligations at that stage. The lawsuit lasted from January 2025 to October 2026 — about 21 months. The 1997–2006 period cited in the documents covered events roughly 19–28 years old at the time of filing.

The court simultaneously granted Sam Altman's request to withdraw his counterclaim for defamation against his sister — thus the counterclaim was also dismissed. The defamation counterclaim had been filed by the defendant Sam Altman and is now withdrawn at his own request.

At the same time, the judge denied Sam Altman's request to recover attorney's fees. The judge noted that the dismissal of the case itself is "sufficient punishment".

The ladder of court sanctions

Federal courts have a ladder of sanctions for violating discovery rules: warnings, fines, exclusion of certain evidence, and — in the most severe cases — full dismissal of the case. Dismissal "with prejudice" is considered the top rung of this ladder, because it bars refiling the case on the same grounds. Judge Blouston explained his choice of this measure by the "willful" nature of the violation.

Both sources emphasize that the ruling is connected to noncompliance with court procedure rules, and no verdict was issued on the merits of the allegations. The event was reported by Reuters and The Verge. The case drew attention in the technology world because it is connected to the person of the head of OpenAI — a company in the field of artificial intelligence (AI).