← Back to ClaimsClaim 1 of 15
Claim #1

Promissory Fraud

32%
Confidence: 17% - 47%
Model Predictions
GPT-5.2
35%
Gemini 2 Flash
35%
Grok 4.1
35%
Claude Opus 4.5
25%
View by Model
Probability Timeline(Consensus)
61%47%32%
Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1
Oct 31, 2025 order 58%
Motion for Relief Denied (order)
Denying a motion for relief from a pretrial order doesn't directly impact the merits of the promissory fraud claim. No change in probability.
Source: Docket #348
Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +3% 58%
Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)
Ordering Sutskever to comply with the subpoena could lead to valuable testimony or evidence supporting the promissory fraud claim. This increases the probability of success, assuming Sutskever's testimony would be favorable to Musk.
Source: Docket #339
Sep 22, 2025 order▲ +2% 55%
Discovery Dispute Orders (order)
Favorable rulings in discovery disputes can help the plaintiff obtain crucial evidence to support the promissory fraud claim, increasing the probability of success. Assuming the rulings were favorable to Musk.
Source: Docket #276, #278
▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)
Aug 12, 2025 order 53%
ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)
The dismissal of other counts (III, XX, XXI) WITH PREJUDICE doesn't directly affect the promissory fraud claim (Count 1), assuming it was not dismissed earlier. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims also does not impact the probability of success for Count 1.
Source: Docket #228
Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -1% 53%
Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)
Granting a motion to strike, even in part, suggests some weakening of the plaintiff's arguments or evidence. This slightly decreases the probability of success.
Source: Docket #222
Jul 25, 2025 order 54%
Case Schedule Modified (order)
Modifying the case schedule doesn't directly impact the merits of the promissory fraud claim. No change in probability.
Source: Docket #215
Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +2% 54%
Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)
Opposing the motion to dismiss shows continued effort to defend the claim, slightly increasing the probability.
Source: Docket #181-182
Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -3% 52%
MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)
Another motion to dismiss, this time against the Second Amended Complaint, indicates continued challenges to the claim's legal sufficiency. The probability decreases slightly.
Source: Docket #173
May 7, 2025 motion 55%
Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)
This motion relates to counterclaims, not the promissory fraud claim itself. Therefore, it has no impact on the probability of success for this specific claim.
Source: Docket #166
May 1, 2025 order▲ +9% 55%
MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)
This is a CRITICAL ruling. If the promissory fraud claim survived the motion to dismiss, it significantly increases the probability of success. The fact that the judge found enough merit to allow the claim to proceed past this stage is a major positive development. Assuming Count 1 survived, probability increases significantly.
Source: Docket #163
Apr 9, 2025 order 46%
Case Management Order (order)
The case management order sets the schedule for discovery and trial, but it doesn't directly impact the merits of the promissory fraud claim. No change in probability.
Source: Docket #146
Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -1% 46%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
Another hearing on the motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty, potentially revealing weaknesses in the plaintiff's arguments. Probability slightly decreases.
Source: Docket #144 Transcript
Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +2% 47%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Opposing the motion to dismiss shows continued effort to defend the claim, slightly increasing the probability.
Source: Docket #127-129
Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -3% 45%
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)
While not directly related to the elements of promissory fraud, the denial of the preliminary injunction suggests a general weakness in the plaintiff's case and the judge's skepticism. This indirectly lowers the probability of success for all claims, including promissory fraud.
Source: Docket #121
Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -4% 48%
Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)
Another motion to dismiss, this time from additional defendants, further challenges the viability of the claim. The probability decreases as the claim faces renewed legal scrutiny.
Source: Docket #102
Jan 13, 2025 order 52%
PI Hearing Scheduled (order)
Scheduling the PI hearing doesn't directly affect the promissory fraud claim's probability. It's a procedural step related to a different motion.
Source: Docket #93
Dec 27, 2024 brief 52%
PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)
Similar to the previous event, this is related to the preliminary injunction and doesn't directly impact the promissory fraud claim's probability.
Source: Docket #73
Dec 13, 2024 brief 52%
Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)
This event is related to the preliminary injunction, not directly to the promissory fraud claim itself. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on the probability of success for this specific claim.
Source: Docket #64-65
Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -1% 52%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing introduces uncertainty. The judge's questioning and arguments presented could reveal weaknesses in the plaintiff's case or strengths in the defendant's arguments. Probability slightly decreases.
Source: Hearing Transcript
Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +3% 53%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
The opposition to the motion to dismiss demonstrates the plaintiff's belief in the strength of their claim and their ability to overcome the defendant's challenges. This slightly increases the probability of success.
Source: Docket #31
Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +7% 50%
Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)
The submission of founding agreements, emails, and financial records provides concrete evidence to support the claim of promissory fraud. This strengthens the plaintiff's case and increases the probability of success.
Source: Exhibits 1-25
Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -5% 43%
Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)
The motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the claim. If successful, it could eliminate the claim entirely. The probability decreases as the claim's viability is now in question.
Source: Docket #23
Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +6% 48%
Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)
Musk's sworn declaration provides direct evidence of the alleged promises and his reliance on them. This is crucial for establishing the elements of promissory fraud, increasing the probability of success.
Source: Musk Decl.
Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%
Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)
Refiling with an amended complaint suggests the plaintiff has addressed the weaknesses that led to the initial dismissal, potentially strengthening the promissory fraud claim with new evidence or arguments. Probability increases.
Source: Docket #1 (new)
Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%
Voluntary Dismissal (filing)
Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests some weakness in the initial claim or strategy, lowering the probability slightly. Plaintiff may have realized issues with the initial complaint.
Source: Docket #12
Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%
Complaint Filed (filing)
Initial filing of the complaint establishes a baseline probability. Promissory fraud requires proving a false promise made with intent to deceive, which is challenging. Probability starts at 0.40.
Source: Docket #1
Evidence from Filings
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
First Amended Complaint - Allegations of Promises
"Altman and Brockman solicited and obtained contributions from Musk by making repeated and material promises, representations, and reassurances to him as described in paragraph 251(a)-(k), supra."
courtlistenerSupports Musk
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Lack of Contemporaneous Intent
"Sustaining a claim of promissory fraud requires alleging with particularity “why the promise was false when made,” which in turn “requires pleading facts from which it can be inferred that the promisor had no intention of performing at the time the promise was made."
courtlistenerSupports Altman
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
First Amended Complaint - Damages Claim
"Musk has been directly and proximately injured by Defendants’ conduct, acts, and/or omissions, for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable."
courtlistenerSupports Musk
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss - Thoughts and Aspirations
"These are not promises of fact, but rather thoughts, ideas, and aspirations. They therefore cannot form the basis for a fraud claim."
courtlistenerSupports Altman
cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024
Original Complaint - Allegations of Deprivation
"Defendants have deprived Musk of the benefit of the parties’ agreement and have caused Musk to suffer damages, including but not limited to the financial contributions he made to OpenAI, Inc., the loss of the time and resources he expended to direct research and recruit talent and damage to his reputation"
courtlistenerSupports Musk
Legal Standard
Clear and convincing evidence
  • 1. Defendant made a promise to plaintiff
  • 2. At the time of the promise, defendant had no intention to perform
  • 3. Defendant intended to deceive plaintiff by making the promise
  • 4. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the promise
  • 5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliance
See: Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (1996)
Element Analysis (Consensus)
Defendant made a promise to plaintiffmoderate

Evidence For

  • Paragraph 296 of the First Amended Complaint (cl_32_0) alleges that Altman and Brockman made repeated promises, representations, and reassurances to Musk to obtain contributions.
  • Paragraphs 251(a)-(k) of the First Amended Complaint (cl_32_0) likely detail the specific promises made.

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue (cl_25_0) that the alleged promises were merely 'thoughts, ideas, and aspirations' and not actionable promises of fact.
  • Defendants argue (cl_25_0) that Musk fails to identify a cognizable promise made to him.
Model Analysis: The strength hinges on the specificity and nature of the promises alleged in paragraph 251(a)-(k). If they are vague or aspirational, this element is weak. If they are concrete commitments, it is stronger.
At the time of the promise, defendant had no intention to performweak

Evidence For

  • The complaint alleges that the defendants acted with intent to harm Musk (cl_32_0), which could suggest a pre-existing intent not to perform.
  • Paragraph 321 alleges that Altman and Brockman participated in a scheme to defraud Musk (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue (cl_25_0) that Musk fails to plead facts demonstrating falsity of any purported promise, or facts establishing any defendant’s contemporaneous intent not to perform.
  • Defendants argue (cl_25_0) that Musk fails to allege with particularity why the promise was false when made and fails to plead facts from which it can be inferred that the promisor had no intention of performing at the time the promise was made.
Model Analysis: This is the weakest element. Proving a defendant's state of mind at a past time is very difficult, and the plaintiff needs strong evidence, such as internal communications, to show a lack of intent to perform at the time the promise was made. The complaint must do more than simply allege a lack of intent; it must provide factual support.
Defendant intended to deceive plaintiff by making the promiseweak

Evidence For

  • The complaint alleges that the defendants misled Musk by failing to disclose information and/or by providing him with information that was inaccurate and/or incomplete (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue (cl_25_0) that Musk does not identify with particularity the acts of purported deception by any defendant.
  • Defendants argue (cl_25_6) that Musk does not identify any facts suggesting that any such promise was made with fraudulent intent, let alone plead these facts with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Model Analysis: Similar to the previous element, proving intent to deceive requires strong evidence. The plaintiff needs to show that the defendants knowingly made false statements or concealed material facts with the specific purpose of misleading Musk.
Plaintiff reasonably relied on the promisemoderate

Evidence For

  • The complaint alleges that the defendants knew or could have reasonably foreseen that their promises, representations, and reassurances would be and were relied upon by and were material to Musk (cl_32_0).
  • Musk made significant financial contributions to OpenAI (cl_1_0), which suggests reliance on the promises made by the defendants.

Evidence Against

  • Defendants may argue that Musk, as a sophisticated investor, did not reasonably rely on the alleged promises.
  • Defendants may argue that Musk's motivations for contributing to OpenAI were not solely based on the alleged promises.
Model Analysis: The reasonableness of Musk's reliance will depend on the nature of the promises and the circumstances surrounding the contributions. Musk's sophistication as an investor could be a factor weighing against reasonable reliance.
Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliancemoderate

Evidence For

  • The complaint alleges that Musk has been directly and proximately injured by the defendants' conduct (cl_32_0).
  • Musk claims damages including financial contributions, loss of time and resources, and damage to his reputation (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants may argue that Musk's damages are speculative or not directly caused by the alleged breach.
  • Defendants may argue that Musk benefited from his association with OpenAI, offsetting any damages.
Model Analysis: Musk needs to provide evidence to support his claims of damages and establish a causal link between the alleged breach and the damages suffered.
Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

  • Musk alleges specific promises were made to him to induce his investment.
  • Musk can point to significant financial contributions as evidence of reliance.

Key Weaknesses

  • Proving the defendants' intent not to perform at the time the promises were made is a significant hurdle.
  • The 'promises' may be viewed as aspirational statements rather than binding commitments.