Is there enough evidence to formally investigate OpenAI?

[I edited the title to more clearly address what I wanted to share]
Given that I've seen a lot of discussion on Tildes about how we haven't seen enough evidence to investigate and/or shut down or pause OpenAI (and other AI companies) yet, I was very happy to see this great interview from one of my favourite AI Writers - Gary Marcus - and a Law Professor + Former Investigator with the New York AG that spells out exactly what the legal mechanisms would be for such an investigation and how we've clearly passed the threshold to start (if we had a functioning US Government).

Some pertinent quotes:

Is there any reason to think that OpenAI has broken any laws that (at least in another time) might be enforced? Which and why?

In the world, in general, law enforcement starts when there’s evidence of a crime, and then investigates. A DA doesn’t wait for all the evidence to investigate a crime, and an AG doesn’t wait for all the evidence in the newspaper to investigate illegal behavior: they learn about a car crash or a product that might hurt people or property and then try to find out what happened. There’s plenty of evidence akin to car crashes. There’s actual break-ins and deaths, and companies themselves who are claiming that they are building something unreasonably dangerous.
...
So we know that OpenAI’s AI agents broke into Hugging Face’s servers, accessed Australian government health systems, and attempted to break into a U.S. Department of Education website and a university library. Unauthorized attempted or actual access to computers is a federal crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. OpenAI says no one intended any of this but the DOJ would be a laughingstock if it took this at face value: subpoena OpenAI and find out who knew what when. There is already evidence of corporate knowledge of unauthorized access.

Given the public evidence, I don’t have much doubt that efforts to quash a subpoena on internal documents would fail. Did staff see the product start acting as if it was going to engage in break-ins, and what warnings were given? The job of law enforcement is to find out.

When it comes to civil law, there are even more possibilities, many of which are being floated in lawsuits already filed. The law of nuisance and the law of abnormally dangerous activity are both relevant to this discussion. As every law student knows, from the case where water on one land flooded another’s mine, if you bring something dangerous onto your land and it escapes and causes harm, you are liable even if you were careful. American law calls this strict liability for “abnormally dangerous activities”: blasting, storing toxic chemicals, crop dusting.