A US federal judge has dismissed a sexual abuse lawsuit brought by Sam Altman’s sister, Annie Altman, after she repeatedly failed to attend a court-ordered independent medical examination despite warnings that the case could be dismissed. Altman has denied the allegations.
A US federal judge has dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by Annie Altman, the sister of OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman, in which she accused her brother of repeatedly sexually abusing and raping her over a period spanning several years.
The dismissal was issued by US District Judge Zachary Bluestone in the Eastern District of Missouri after Annie Altman failed to appear for an independent medical examination that the court had ordered as part of the litigation. According to court reporting, the judge had previously warned that failure to comply with the examination requirement could result in dismissal of the case.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Annie Altman cannot simply bring the same claims again in that federal court. The judge also rejected Sam Altman's request for attorney fees, finding the dismissal itself to be a sufficient sanction.
Sam Altman has consistently denied his sister's allegations.
Lawsuit was filed in 2025
Annie Altman filed the lawsuit against her brother in federal court in St. Louis, Missouri, in January 2025.
She alleged that Sam Altman sexually abused her repeatedly between 1997 and 2006. According to the allegations reported in court documents, the alleged abuse began when Annie was three years old and Sam was 12. She further alleged that some of the incidents continued into the period when Sam Altman was an adult.
The allegations were strongly denied by Sam Altman and his family.
Because the claims concern alleged conduct from decades ago, the case has involved significant legal and procedural disputes over which claims could still be pursued under Missouri law.
The lawsuit initially survived in part after a March 2026 ruling allowed Annie Altman an opportunity to amend her complaint under Missouri's statutory framework for childhood sexual abuse claims. The judge had previously ruled that her common-law sexual assault and sexual battery claims were time-barred, while giving her an opportunity to pursue a different legal theory.
The latest dismissal therefore represents a later development in a case that had already gone through substantial procedural litigation.
Medical examination became central to the case
The immediate reason for the latest dismissal was not a judicial finding that the sexual abuse allegations were false.
Rather, Judge Bluestone dismissed the case after Annie Altman failed to comply with the court's discovery requirements, particularly an order requiring her to undergo an independent medical examination.
According to the court account reported by Anadolu Agency, Annie Altman failed to attend the examination on three separate occasions. The court had reportedly offered accommodations, including allowing a female nurse to be present and giving her the option of traveling to Boston instead of St. Louis for the examination.
The judge concluded that the repeated failure to comply had prevented the case from moving forward.
The court reportedly described the situation as a pattern of intentional delay and said that Annie Altman's explanations for failing to attend the examination were not credible.
The judge had previously warned that continued failure to participate in the independent medical examination could result in the case being dismissed with prejudice.
That warning ultimately became significant when the court issued its latest ruling.
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
The distinction between dismissal of a lawsuit and a finding that allegations are false is important.
A court can dismiss a case for procedural reasons without conducting a trial or reaching a factual determination on the underlying allegations.
In this case, the dismissal was based on Annie Altman's failure to comply with discovery obligations and the court's medical-examination order.
The Verge reported that Judge Bluestone granted Sam Altman's request to dismiss the case with prejudice, while rejecting Altman's request for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs.
The latest ruling therefore does not constitute a judicial finding that Sam Altman committed or did not commit the alleged abuse.
Sam Altman has denied the accusations, while Annie Altman's former lawyer, Santos Perez, has said he continues to believe in her despite no longer being authorized to comment on the case.
Sam Altman has denied the allegations
Sam Altman has repeatedly rejected his sister's allegations.
The Altman family previously issued a statement describing the claims as false and deeply hurtful. The family has also disputed Annie Altman's account of events and has described providing her with financial assistance.
Sam Altman has separately argued that Annie's accusations emerged after disputes involving financial support from the family. Those claims are his characterization of the dispute and have not been established as a judicial finding.
The case has consequently involved sharply conflicting accounts from members of the Altman family.
Annie Altman's former attorney, Santos Perez, has maintained that he believes in her claims. However, he withdrew from representing her earlier in October and said afterward that he was no longer authorized to comment on the case.
Earlier ruling had already changed the case
The October dismissal followed an earlier ruling in March 2026 that substantially narrowed the legal issues.
In March, Judge Bluestone ruled that Annie Altman's common-law claims relating to alleged sexual assault and sexual battery were time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. However, he gave her permission to file an amended complaint under Missouri's Childhood Sexual Abuse statute.
That decision meant the case was not completely over at that point.
Annie Altman was given an opportunity to pursue her allegations under a different legal framework. Her legal team said at the time that she intended to continue the case.
Sam Altman, meanwhile, had also brought counterclaims against his sister, including allegations involving defamation and abuse of process. The March ruling allowed parts of those counterclaims to continue.
The latest ruling is therefore distinct from the March decision because the October dismissal resulted from the plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery obligations and the court-ordered medical examination.
Judge also addressed Sam Altman's counterclaims
The latest ruling did not simply grant every request made by Sam Altman's legal team.
According to Anadolu Agency, the court dismissed Sam Altman's counterclaims without prejudice, while denying his request for attorney fees. The judge determined that dismissal of Annie Altman's lawsuit was itself a sufficient sanction.
The distinction is significant.
A dismissal without prejudice generally leaves open the possibility of bringing a claim again, subject to applicable legal requirements. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, prevents the same claim from being refiled in the same court.
The judge's ruling therefore brought the main lawsuit filed by Annie Altman to an end while treating Sam Altman's counterclaims separately.
Sam Altman's profile makes the case particularly notable
The lawsuit has attracted significant attention because of Sam Altman's position at the center of the global artificial intelligence industry.
Altman is the co-founder and chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT.
Since ChatGPT's public launch in 2022, Altman has become one of the most recognizable figures in the technology sector and a prominent voice in discussions about artificial intelligence, technological development and the future of work.
The allegations against him therefore generated considerable public attention beyond the immediate family dispute.
However, the lawsuit itself concerned alleged events dating back decades and was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution.
No criminal conviction against Sam Altman resulted from the civil case.
Recent developments had intensified the public dispute
The legal dispute remained active publicly even shortly before the dismissal.
TMZ reported on October 19 that Sam Altman had accused his sister of using the litigation and related deposition material to generate attention on social media. According to the report, Altman's legal team sought an order requiring Annie to confirm that confidential deposition videos and transcripts had been destroyed.
TMZ reported that Altman argued there were reasons to believe the lawsuit was being used partly to generate online attention. Those assertions came from Altman and his legal filings and should not be treated as established facts about Annie Altman's motives.
The report also said Annie had posted portions of her deposition on platforms including X and TikTok, which Altman's lawyers objected to.
The dispute over deposition material added another layer to an already contentious legal battle.
Lawyers did not immediately comment on latest ruling
Following the dismissal, Annie Altman's attorney Laura Politi did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.
Sam Altman's lawyers also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Santos Perez, who previously represented Annie, said he was no longer authorized to comment on the case but maintained that he continued to believe in her.
The lack of an immediate detailed response from the parties means that the court's written ruling remains the central source for understanding why the case was dismissed.
What the ruling means for Sam Altman and Annie Altman
For Sam Altman, the dismissal ends the main civil lawsuit in its current form and removes the prospect of a trial on Annie Altman's claims in that court.
For Annie Altman, the dismissal represents a significant procedural setback because the case was dismissed with prejudice after the court concluded that she had repeatedly failed to comply with its discovery requirements.
Most importantly, the dismissal should not be confused with a factual determination about whether the underlying allegations occurred.
The court's decision was based on litigation conduct and compliance with court orders rather than a jury verdict determining the truth or falsity of the allegations.
The history of the case also illustrates how procedural requirements can determine the outcome of civil litigation, particularly when a party fails to comply with discovery orders after receiving warnings from the court.
The case began with allegations concerning events said to have occurred decades ago. It progressed through disputes over statutes of limitations, amended pleadings, counterclaims and discovery. Ultimately, the court concluded that continued failure to comply with the independent medical examination requirement left dismissal as the appropriate sanction.
For now, the court's latest ruling closes the federal lawsuit filed by Annie Altman against her brother.
