Most attorneys advise their clients not to speak about their case case while litigation is ongoing, much less give interviews to the press. Yet, Allan Brooks appears in dozens of interviews and makes multiple contradictory statements. Why would his attorney allow him to do that?
According to the lawsuit Brooks vs OpenAI,
36. When Allan broke free from the ChatGPT induced delusions the damage to Allan’s career, reputation, finances, and relationships was already done.
Yet in the immediate wake of his experience, Brooks told a different story on Reddit. In response to one commenter, he wrote, Thanks for the kind words. I’m back to normal, regular routine, and now trying to turn this terrible experience into some positive by helping others who may be going through the same thing 🙂
When specifically asked about his past history, Brooks said I’m stable with a great career.
After he learns that a lawsuit is possible his story appears to change dramatically.
“It ruined my career,” Brooks said. “I’m on disability right now. My professional reputation has been tarnished, my personal reputation. And I’m just unpacking all of that.”
He went from back to normal at his stable career to ruined career and on disability.
Brooks says he’s currently on disability leave. “My whole work year was destroyed as a result of all this.“
It’s unclear how one 3 week episode could ruin an entire year’s work, but if he is too disabled to work for his job, how is he able to give constant interviews to the press and work so much for The Human Line Project? As the community manager, he says “I’ve spoken to 100+ victims personally.”
According to this Toronto Life article published on March 3, 2026,
If Brooks had been obsessive about inventing a new field of mathematics, he was even more fired up about having been tricked…. To offer even more people a safe space to connect, Brisson and Brooks launched the Human Line Discord server.
The group became Brooks’s new fixation. He had managed to hold on to his job throughout his spiral but was now finding it increasingly difficult to concentrate on work. People were reaching out to him through social media, sending frantic messages about being dragged down by their chatbots. He felt as though he were rescuing survivors from a burning building—he couldn’t walk away.
Is this a case of disability? Or just an opportunistic career change? Instead of recruiting workers, now Brooks recruits members for the Human Line Project support group/plaintiff pipeline. Does he get a referral fee for each one or is this a straight salary position?
Brooks officially resigned from his day job at the end of 2025 to focus on the Human Line full time, a paying gig thanks to investments from Brisson and Dorey. By January of this year, he was overseeing a group of more than 200 people.
At the end of his episode, Allan Brooks messaged OpenAI support to “formally report a deeply troubling experience.” He offered to share full chat transcripts and other documentation, noting that “This experience had a severe psychological impact on me, and I fear others may not be as lucky to step away from it before harm occurs.”
Before Harm Occurs vs Damage is Done
How does counsel plan to square Brooks own claim to OpenAI that he was “lucky to step away from it before harm occurs” with “the damage to Allan’s career, reputation, finances, and relationships was already done”?
- According to Brook’s own words, he claimed to be back to normal at his career immediately afterwards, so there is no career damage.
- He claims he was too broke to patent his discovery, so there was no financial damage other than his chatgpt subscription.
- He did not lose any relationships so there is no relationship damage.
- And as far as reputational damage is concerned…You can’t credibly claim reputational damage when you are the one actively and persistently damaging your own reputation. No one forced you into the public eye.
If you claim that your life experience qualifies you to become the central figure and spokesperson for a new movement, then the story you are telling should hold up to simple vetting without falling apart. The scrutiny of an attorney will be much more rigorous and unforgiving, so I have to wonder – is Brooks case even meant to succeed in a court of law or just in the court of public opinion?
