← Back to ClaimsClaim 10 of 15
Claim #10

Lanham Act False Advertising

31%
Confidence: 16% - 46%
Model Predictions
GPT-5.2
35%
Gemini 2 Flash
35%
Grok 4.1
30%
Claude Opus 4.5
25%
View by Model
Probability Timeline(Consensus)
53%40%27%
Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1
Oct 31, 2025 order 47%
Motion for Relief Denied (order)
Denial of a motion for relief from a pretrial order is a procedural matter and does not directly impact the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim, unless the motion directly related to evidence needed for the claim.
Source: Docket #348
Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +4% 47%
Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)
If Ilya Sutskever's testimony is likely to provide evidence of false or misleading statements made by OpenAI, compelling his compliance with the subpoena significantly increases the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #339
Sep 22, 2025 order▲ +3% 43%
Discovery Dispute Orders (order)
Favorable rulings in discovery disputes could provide access to key evidence supporting the Lanham Act claim, increasing its probability. Unfavorable rulings would decrease the probability.
Source: Docket #276, #278
▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)
Aug 12, 2025 order 40%
ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)
The dismissal of other counts (III, XX, XXI) with prejudice does not directly impact the Lanham Act claim (Count X), assuming Count X was not dismissed. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims also doesn't affect the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #228
Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -2% 40%
Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)
If the motion to strike targeted allegations relevant to the Lanham Act claim, it could weaken the claim by removing supporting facts. This slightly decreases the probability.
Source: Docket #222
Jul 25, 2025 order 42%
Case Schedule Modified (order)
Modifying the case schedule is a procedural matter and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #215
Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +2% 42%
Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)
Opposition to the MTD signals continued confidence in the claim's legal basis, slightly increasing the probability of success.
Source: Docket #181-182
Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 40%
MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)
Another MTD, this time to the Second Amended Complaint, suggests ongoing challenges to the legal sufficiency of the claims, including the Lanham Act claim. It decreases the probability.
Source: Docket #173
May 7, 2025 motion 45%
Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)
This motion relates to counterclaims, not the Lanham Act claim itself. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #166
May 1, 2025 order▲ +13% 45%
MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)
This is a critical ruling. If the Lanham Act claim survived the MTD, it significantly increases the probability of success. The claim has been deemed legally sufficient to proceed to discovery.
Source: Docket #163
Apr 9, 2025 order 32%
Case Management Order (order)
Setting a discovery schedule is a procedural step and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #146
Apr 4, 2025 hearing 32%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing itself doesn't change the probability until a ruling is made. It maintains the status quo.
Source: Docket #144 Transcript
Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +2% 32%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Opposition to the MTD shows continued effort to defend the claim, but the impact is limited after the PI denial. It slightly increases the probability.
Source: Docket #127-129
Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -15% 30%
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)
Denial of the preliminary injunction is a significant blow. It suggests the judge is not convinced of the likelihood of success on the merits, including the Lanham Act claim. This substantially decreases the probability.
Source: Docket #121
Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 45%
Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)
Another MTD, especially from Microsoft, raises concerns about the strength of the FAC and the Lanham Act claim. It introduces renewed uncertainty.
Source: Docket #102
Jan 13, 2025 order 50%
PI Hearing Scheduled (order)
Scheduling the hearing doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the Lanham Act claim. It's a procedural step.
Source: Docket #93
Dec 27, 2024 brief▲ +2% 50%
PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)
The reply brief aims to counter the opposition to the PI, potentially strengthening the arguments for the Lanham Act claim and increasing its probability slightly.
Source: Docket #73
Dec 13, 2024 brief▼ -2% 48%
Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)
Opposition to the PI motion suggests the defendants have strong arguments against the likelihood of success on the merits, which includes the Lanham Act claim. This slightly decreases the probability.
Source: Docket #64-65
Nov 20, 2024 hearing 50%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing itself doesn't directly change the probability, as the outcome is still unknown. It maintains the status quo.
Source: Hearing Transcript
Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +2% 50%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
A strong opposition to the MTD signals confidence in the claim's legal basis and factual support, slightly increasing the probability of success.
Source: Docket #31
Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +8% 48%
Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)
Exhibits like the Founding Agreement, emails, and financial records could contain evidence of OpenAI's representations and their potential falsity, significantly strengthening the Lanham Act claim if they support Musk's allegations.
Source: Exhibits 1-25
Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -5% 40%
Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)
The MTD introduces uncertainty. If the MTD challenges the sufficiency of the false advertising allegations, it directly threatens the claim's viability.
Source: Docket #23
Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +3% 45%
Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)
Musk's declaration could provide evidence of OpenAI's initial promises and how their current actions deviate from those promises, potentially supporting the 'false or misleading' element of the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Musk Decl.
Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%
Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)
Refiling with additional allegations and exhibits suggests a stronger case. The FAC likely contains more specific allegations supporting the false advertising claim, increasing its probability.
Source: Docket #1 (new)
Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%
Voluntary Dismissal (filing)
Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests some weakness in the initial complaint or strategy, lowering the probability of success for all claims, including the Lanham Act claim.
Source: Docket #12
Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%
Complaint Filed (filing)
Initial filing establishes baseline. Lanham Act claim viability depends on proving false or misleading statements about OpenAI's services and a likelihood of consumer deception, which is uncertain at this stage.
Source: Docket #1
Evidence from Filings
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
Amended Complaint Paragraph 409
"As described above, Altman and Brockman, in their individual capacities and on behalf of OpenAI, Inc., have made materially false and/or misleading representations of fact in commercial advertisements about the nature, characteristics, and qualities of Defendants’ products and services, including, but not limited to, that OpenAI, Inc.’s AI/AGI research and technology would be safe, largely open source for the benefit of humanity, and would not be concentrated or used for private commercial gain."
cl_32_0Supports Musk
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Argument
"None of the statements from OpenAI’s website that Musk has identified in his complaint—each of which concerns OpenAI’s mission and general philosophy—is an advertisement for goods or services sold, or otherwise made “primarily out of economic motivation,” Children’s Health Def., 112 F.4th at 765 (cleaned up). See ¶ 285 (e.g., OpenAI’s “mission is to ensure that [AGI] benefits all humanity . . . .”)."
cl_25_0Supports Altman
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
Amended Complaint Paragraph 402
"Defendants’ calculated misstatements to the relevant public have not only misled potential customers but have directly diverted those customers from Plaintiffs to Defendants, causing Plaintiffs to incur measurable losses in customer acquisition, market penetration, and overall profitability."
cl_32_0Supports Musk
cl_25_6Oct 8, 2024
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Argument on Commercial Injury
"Musk’s suggestion that his reputation for technological openness has been tarnished through association with OpenAI does not adequately plead commercial injury—an independent defect that deprives Musk of standing to assert a claim under the Lanham Act."
cl_25_6Supports Altman
cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024
Original Complaint Paragraph 282
"Musk is well-known for his commitment to open technology—e.g., Tesla and SpaceX generally do not hold and/or do not enforce patents for their technology, which is free for the public to use."
cl_1_0Supports Musk
Legal Standard
Preponderance of the evidence
  • 1. Defendant made false or misleading statements of fact
  • 2. The statements were used in commercial advertising or promotion
  • 3. The statements actually deceived or were likely to deceive consumers
  • 4. The deception was material (likely to influence purchasing decisions)
  • 5. Plaintiff suffered or is likely to suffer competitive injury
See: Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014)
Element Analysis (Consensus)
Defendant made false or misleading statements of factmoderate

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that OpenAI made false statements regarding their commitment to open-source technology and non-profit status (cl_32_0, cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue that the statements relate to OpenAI's mission and general philosophy, not specific goods or services (cl_25_0).
Model Analysis: The strength is moderate because while Musk identifies specific statements, their falsity is not definitively established at this stage. It hinges on proving OpenAI's deviation from its initial commitments.
The statements were used in commercial advertising or promotionweak

Evidence For

  • Musk claims the statements were made via OpenAI's website and online marketing (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants contend that the statements are not commercial advertisements for goods or services (cl_25_0).
Model Analysis: This element is weak. Musk needs to demonstrate that the statements were directly linked to promoting OpenAI's services or products, which is not clearly evident from the provided evidence. The 'economic motivation' behind the statements is questionable.
The statements actually deceived or were likely to deceive consumersweak

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that the misstatements misled potential customers (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • No evidence cited
Model Analysis: This element is weak because there is no concrete evidence presented to show that consumers were actually deceived by the statements. Musk needs to provide evidence of consumer confusion or reliance on the alleged misrepresentations.
The deception was material (likely to influence purchasing decisions)weak

Evidence For

  • No evidence cited

Evidence Against

  • No evidence cited
Model Analysis: There is a lack of evidence regarding the materiality of the alleged deception. Musk needs to demonstrate that the statements were likely to influence purchasing decisions related to AI products or services. This element is weak due to the absence of supporting evidence.
Plaintiff suffered or is likely to suffer competitive injuryweak

Evidence For

  • Musk claims that the deceptive conduct injured his business reputation and commercial interests and diverted customers from Plaintiffs to Defendants (cl_32_0, cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue that Musk's tarnished reputation and difficulty recruiting AI scientists do not establish a direct chain of causation between the advertisements and commercial injury (cl_25_6).
Model Analysis: This element is weak. While Musk alleges competitive injury, the connection between OpenAI's statements and specific damages to Musk's businesses (xAI, Tesla, SpaceX) is tenuous. The causal link is not sufficiently established.
Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

  • Musk can argue that OpenAI's shift from its initial open-source, non-profit commitments constitutes a false statement.
  • Musk has a strong reputation for open technology, which could be leveraged to argue competitive harm.

Key Weaknesses

  • The connection between OpenAI's statements and direct commercial injury to Musk's businesses is weak.
  • Musk faces challenges in proving that OpenAI's statements were commercial advertisements and that consumers were actually deceived.