OpenAI has explained that ChatGPT should not be used for personalized legal and medical advice, which is consistent with the efforts the company is taking to address the risks that could come from AI-generated advice, as per an updated usage policy released earlier on October 29, 2025 that explicitly bans giving personalized advice in areas that require professional certification, such as law, medicine and finance. This announcement, which is also related to financial advice, attempts to mitigate the liability concerns by explaining that the AI is for general information and educational purposes, and not as a replacement for qualified experts. While some reports are suggesting this is a rollback in the capabilities of ChatGPT, the reality is more nuanced, with OpenAI executives like Mira Murati publicly stating in an interview on November 3, 2025, that the changes are not bans on discussion for topics, but rather reinforcements of long-standing rules to prevent misuse that could lead to harm or legal issues to ChatGPT users. OpenAI has not made any new prohibitions but instead reiterated existing policies to make sure that users do not mistake AI outputs for professional advice – the guidelines, which were established in the first release of the model in November 2022, have been periodically updated to account for changing regulatory landscapes and user feedback.
OpenAI’s Policy on Advice Categories
OpenAI’s guidance makes it clear that ChatGPT is not meant for giving customized legal advice, a measure based on the realization that legal issues tend to involve specific aspects of jurisdiction, individual situations, and moral obligations that can only be handled by licensed attorneys. This policy is intended to deter users from using AI to make decisions that are best handled by a professional with legal knowledge such as drafting contracts, interpreting laws and advising on litigation strategies where inaccuracies could lead to serious consequences such as financial penalties or invalid agreements. By focusing on general information, OpenAI aims to avoid the potential liability that may arise if users mistakenly interpret AI-generated information as legally binding advice as has occurred in previous cases where individuals have unsuccessfully used chatbot outputs in court, so OpenAI has included disclaimers in outputs and built in safeguards such as response refusals for inquiries that request personalized legal counsel. This approach is in line with the company’s longstanding guidelines for OpenAI, which emphasize user safety and clarity rather than capabilities of AI systems, based on industry standards that have been established by organizations such as the American Bar Association and warn against unregulated AI in the practice of law. Similarly, OpenAI limits ChatGPT from providing personalised medical advice, preventing it from replying with a diagnosis, a treatment recommendation or a prescription for medicine on the basis of symptoms described by the user, to avoid situations where a diagnosis or treatment could be wrong and could lead to a worsening of the health problem or delay seeking appropriate care. The company does not allow the use of its AI for health recommendations, which makes it clear how important it is to seek input from qualified healthcare professionals for medical concerns, with inbuilt prompts to redirect users to doctors or to credible sources such as the World Health Organisation when health-related queries are raised. This restriction is part of a wider plan to ensure that users don’t use AI-generated information in place of professional medical advice which can have significant consequences in the field of health and safety, especially considering studies from institutions such as Stanford University that have shown how AI models can sometimes give plausible but inaccurate medical information because of the limitations of the training data. Financial advice is also regulated by these restrictions, with OpenAI taking a step back at permitting ChatGPT to give specific recommendations of investments, tax strategies, or budgeting plans aligned with individual finances in fear of legal ramifications from those who may lose money because of algorithmic recommendations. This decision demonstrates a cautious stance regarding the potential consequences that could arise from users acting based on AI-generated financial advice, which could result in a substantial financial loss or legal problems due to regulatory warnings from regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about the potential risk of AI in financial technology, leading OpenAI to enforce these limits through content filters for genericizing responses or suggesting users to seek certified financial planners.
Reports Contribute to Restriction Claims
Recent reports have been made to the claims that ChatGPT will no longer provide health or legal advice, which appears to be a shift in the limitations of the services that may fundamentally change how people interact with the AI. These reports attribute the restrictions to liability concerns, and market them as a major shift in how ChatGPT can be used with headlines focusing on a “pullback” or “ban” to grab the headlines in light of a growing scrutiny of AI ethics. For example, an article published on Financial Express on November 3, 2025, talks about how OpenAI’s decision not to provide medical, legal, and financial advice was based on concerns about potential legal issues involved, as the updated policy prevents tailored outputs in these areas to reduce the risks associated with lawsuits from users who may experience harm as a result of following the suggestions provided by AI, with the speculation that this could limit the tool’s usefulness for daily queries. Coverage from Yahoo News further underlines this image, the October 29 update explicitly prohibiting the use of OpenAI’s AI for consultations that require certification, for example, this article published on November 3, 2025, explained the company’s “defensive” move in response to mounting global regulations such as The European Union’s AI Act that classify high-risk applications in health and law. However, these reports may not fully reflect the nuances of OpenAI’s policy, which hasn’t fundamentally shifted but is still in line with existing guidelines that focus on user safety and legal compliance, as the company has had similar disclaimers since ChatGPT’s launch, although their recent update features more explicit language to address viral misinformation and ensure transparency in an era of heightened AI accountability.
Subleties and Discrediting Myths
Despite the reports about a prohibition of legal and medical advice, the situation is more complex with OpenAI permitting general discussions on these topics but preventing personalized or prescriptive answers that could be misinterpreted as expert opinions. OpenAI’s policies have long stressed the need to avoid using ChatGPT for personalized advice in these areas, as affirmed by the company’s safety team in blog posts dating back to 2023, which provided details of red-team testing to define and reduce risks in sensitive areas. A report by the website of Indy100 on November 4, 2025 clarifies that the so-called ban is not an innovation, but a strengthening of existing guidelines and that users can still ask questions about general legal concepts, such as “what is contract law” or medical facts, such as “symptoms of a common cold,” but the AI will not provide tailored advice to users about specific situations, such as “should I sue my neighbor” or “what medicine should I take for my headache,” often responding with requests to seek professional advice. This clarification is useful to push back on the hype about new restrictions and emphasize that OpenAI’s approach is one that is consistent with its previous established policies that are meant to evolve in response to feedback from ethicists and regulators without restricting educational uses. Fact-checks, for example The Verge’s November 3, 2025 piece, support the view that ChatGPT hasn’t introduced a ban on providing legal and health advice, noting the October 29 policy update is only reorganizing and tightening language around banned uses that existed before the change, and that viral social media posts about the changes have misinterpreted the overall outcome of the changes as a total shutdown of related conversations. These fact-checks highlight that OpenAI’s policies have always been set to prevent users from using AI outputs as a substitute for professional advice, with internal mechanisms such as content moderation layers ensuring compliance and reiterating these guidelines in order to ensure that users are aware of the limitations of AI-generated content, as well as the importance of seeking consultations with qualified professionals to make critical decisions and thus reduce the spread of misinformation about the capabilities of the tool.
Implications for User Safety
The restrictions on using ChatGPT for legal, medical and financial advice are more about keeping online users safe by promoting the use of verified experts rather than possibly flawed interpretations from AI which cannot provide real-time context or accountability. By discouraging users from using AI outputs as professional surrogates, OpenAI aims to reduce the challenges of using AI in critical situations, such as preventing situations where users receive incorrect legal advice that causes them to lose court cases or receive misguided medical self-treatment that causes them to develop health complications, as demonstrated by case studies from organizations such as the Center for AI Safety documenting real-world harms caused by trusting generative models too much. This approach emphasizes the importance of guiding users to qualified experts who can offer customized guidance based on individual circumstances and ChatGPT generally includes disclaimers in responses to reinforce this message and to promote informed decision-making. OpenAI’s attention to liability is part of its dedication to AI deployment, as the AI company walks a line of possible lawsuits and ethical concerns by preemptively restricting high-risk applications, thereby gaining the trust of users and regulators alike. By openly communicating the limitations of ChatGPT, OpenAI hopes to avoid the situation where people misunderstand the tool’s capabilities, leading to negative consequences for the user, such as losing tons of money on a bad tip from the AI on financial investment, but instead create a culture of AI literacy where people will realize the tool’s capabilities in creativity and general knowledge while also its shortcomings in specific areas of expertise. This strategy not only ensures the safety of its users but also strengthens OpenAI’s reputation as a responsible AI provider that prioritizes ethical considerations and user safety in its technology offerings, in line with broader industry trends of the movement towards transparency as seen in initiatives from other competitors such as Anthropic and Google. Overall, OpenAI reiterating its policies remains a reminder of the significance of knowing the abilities and constraints of AI machines in order to promote a balanced integration of technology in people’s lives without relying excessively on unverified sources.
