← Back to ClaimsClaim 12 of 15
Claim #12

California False Advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500)

34%
Confidence: 19% - 49%
Model Predictions
GPT-5.2
40%
Gemini 2 Flash
35%
Grok 4.1
35%
Claude Opus 4.5
25%
View by Model
Probability Timeline(Consensus)
65%43%20%
Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1
Oct 31, 2025 order 55%
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 false advertising claim, unless the relief sought was directly related to evidence or arguments crucial to the claim.
Source: Docket #348
Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +5% 55%
Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)
If Ilya Sutskever's testimony is relevant to proving the elements of the false advertising claim (e.g., knowledge of misleading statements, intent to deceive), compelling his compliance with the subpoena could significantly increase the probability of success. His testimony could provide crucial evidence to support the claim.
Source: Docket #339
Sep 22, 2025 order 50%
Discovery Dispute Orders (order)
Orders resolving discovery disputes can have varying impacts. If the orders compel the defendants to produce key documents or information relevant to the false advertising claim, it could increase the probability of success. If the orders limit the scope of discovery, it could decrease the probability. Without knowing the specifics of the disputes and the court's rulings, the net effect is assumed to be neutral.
Source: Docket #276, #278
▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)
Aug 12, 2025 order 50%
ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)
The dismissal of Counts III, XX, and XXI with prejudice does not directly impact Count 12 (California False Advertising) unless those counts were inextricably linked to the elements of the false advertising claim. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims also does not directly affect the probability of success for the false advertising claim.
Source: Docket #228
Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -5% 50%
Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)
If the motion to strike targeted allegations relevant to the false advertising claim (e.g., specific instances of misleading statements or damages), it could weaken the claim and decrease its probability of success. If it targeted irrelevant allegations, the impact would be minimal.
Source: Docket #222
Jul 25, 2025 order 55%
Case Schedule Modified (order)
Modifying the case schedule is a procedural matter and does not directly impact the probability of success for the false advertising claim.
Source: Docket #215
Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +5% 55%
Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)
The opposition to the MTD signals the plaintiff's continued defense of the claim and belief in its viability, providing a slight increase in probability.
Source: Docket #181-182
Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 50%
MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)
The filing of another MTD against the Second Amended Complaint introduces renewed uncertainty. It suggests that the defendants continue to challenge the legal sufficiency of the claims, including the false advertising claim.
Source: Docket #173
May 7, 2025 motion 55%
Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)
This motion relates to counterclaims and does not directly impact the probability of success for the plaintiff's false advertising claim.
Source: Docket #166
May 1, 2025 order▲ +15% 55%
MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)
This is a CRITICAL ruling. If the MTD was denied with respect to the false advertising claim (Count 12), it significantly increases the probability of success. This means the judge found the claim to be sufficiently pleaded and viable to proceed to discovery. If the MTD was granted, the probability would decrease significantly.
Source: Docket #163
Apr 9, 2025 order 40%
Case Management Order (order)
The case management order setting the discovery schedule doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the false advertising claim. It's a procedural step that sets the stage for further development of the case.
Source: Docket #146
Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -5% 40%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
Similar to the previous MTD hearing, this introduces uncertainty. The judge's questions and comments could reveal potential weaknesses in the false advertising claim.
Source: Docket #144 Transcript
Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +5% 45%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
Opposition to the MTD provides a slight boost, indicating the plaintiff's continued belief in the claim's viability and their effort to defend it against dismissal.
Source: Docket #127-129
Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 40%
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)
Denial of the preliminary injunction is a setback for the plaintiff. While not directly related to the merits of the false advertising claim, it suggests a lack of immediate and irreparable harm, which could indirectly weaken the overall case and the perceived strength of all claims.
Source: Docket #121
Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -10% 45%
Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)
Another MTD filed by the defendants further challenges the FAC. This increases the uncertainty surrounding the false advertising claim and decreases its probability of success, as it indicates ongoing legal challenges to the claim's viability.
Source: Docket #102
Jan 13, 2025 order 55%
PI Hearing Scheduled (order)
Scheduling the PI hearing doesn't change the probability of the false advertising claim. It's a procedural step related to the PI motion, not the underlying merits of the claim.
Source: Docket #93
Dec 27, 2024 brief 55%
PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)
Similar to the opposition to the PI motion, the reply brief doesn't directly affect the probability of success for the false advertising claim. It's focused on the PI arguments, not the underlying merits of the claim.
Source: Docket #73
Dec 13, 2024 brief 55%
Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)
Opposition to the preliminary injunction motion doesn't directly impact the false advertising claim's probability. While the PI motion might be related to the overall case strategy, it doesn't provide specific information about the strength or weakness of the false advertising claim itself.
Source: Docket #64-65
Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -5% 55%
MTD Hearing Held (hearing)
The hearing itself introduces some uncertainty. The judge's questioning and comments during the hearing could reveal potential weaknesses in the false advertising claim, leading to a slight decrease in probability.
Source: Hearing Transcript
Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +5% 60%
Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)
A strong opposition to the MTD, arguing against dismissal, increases the probability. This suggests that Musk's legal team believes they have a viable claim and can overcome the defendants' challenges.
Source: Docket #31
Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +15% 55%
Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)
The submission of exhibits, especially if they include the Founding Agreement, email evidence, and financial records, can significantly bolster the false advertising claim. These exhibits could provide direct evidence of misleading statements, intent to deceive, and resulting damages.
Source: Exhibits 1-25
Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -10% 40%
Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)
The filing of a motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty. If the MTD challenges the elements of the false advertising claim (e.g., lack of a misleading statement, lack of reliance, or lack of injury), it decreases the probability of success.
Source: Docket #23
Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +5% 50%
Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)
Musk's declaration, if it directly addresses the alleged false advertising and its impact, strengthens the claim. His testimony about the founding promises and donation intent could provide context for how the alleged misrepresentations were material and caused him harm.
Source: Musk Decl.
Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +20% 45%
Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)
Refiling the complaint with additional allegations and exhibits increases the probability. The FAC likely addresses the weaknesses that led to the initial dismissal, strengthening the false advertising claim with more specific details and evidence of misleading statements.
Source: Docket #1 (new)
Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -15% 25%
Voluntary Dismissal (filing)
Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests weaknesses in the initial case or a strategic reset. This significantly lowers the probability of success for all claims, including the false advertising claim, as it indicates a lack of confidence in the initial pleading.
Source: Docket #12
Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%
Complaint Filed (filing)
Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. The claim's viability is uncertain at this stage, but the filing itself gives it a chance to succeed. False advertising claims often hinge on proving misleading statements and consumer reliance, which are fact-intensive.
Source: Docket #1
Evidence from Filings
cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024
Complaint alleging false/misleading representations
"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 that OpenAI, Inc.’s AI/AGI research and technology would be largely open source for the benefit of humanity, and would not be concentrated or used for private commercial gain."
courtlistenerSupports Musk
cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss arguing lack of commercial advertisement
"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,”"
courtlistenerSupports Altman
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
Amended Complaint alleging false/misleading representations
"Altman and Brockman, in their individual capacities and on behalf of OpenAI, Inc., have made materially false and/or misleading representations of fact 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."
courtlistenerSupports Musk
cl_25_6Oct 8, 2024
Motion to Dismiss arguing statements relate to mission, not promotion
"Each of the statements included in the complaint relates to OpenAI’s mission and general philosophy. None is tethered to the promotion of OpenAI’s goods or services."
courtlistenerSupports Altman
cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024
Amended Complaint alleging diversion of customers
"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."
courtlistenerSupports Musk
Legal Standard
Preponderance of the evidence
  • 1. Defendant made untrue or misleading statements
  • 2. Defendant knew or should have known statements were untrue/misleading
  • 3. Statements were made with intent to sell or dispose of property/services
See: Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2002)
Element Analysis (Consensus)
Defendant made untrue or misleading statementsmoderate

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that Altman and Brockman made false and misleading representations about OpenAI's AI/AGI research being largely open source and not used for private commercial gain (cl_1_0, cl_32_0).
  • Musk alleges that OpenAI represented on its website that it cautiously and gradually releases new AI systems with substantial safeguards (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue that the statements relate to OpenAI's mission and general philosophy, not specific goods or services (cl_25_0, cl_25_6).
Model Analysis: The strength of this element hinges on whether the statements regarding OpenAI's mission can be considered factual representations about its products or services. The 'open source' claim has some weight, but it's not clear if it's demonstrably false.
Defendant knew or should have known statements were untrue/misleadingweak

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that Defendants knew or should have known their communications were untrue or misleading (cl_1_0, cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants have not directly addressed this element in the provided documents, but their argument that the statements were about mission and philosophy suggests they believed the statements to be true.
Model Analysis: This element is weak because there is little direct evidence of Defendants' knowledge or intent. Musk's allegations are largely conclusory.
Statements were made with intent to sell or dispose of property/servicesweak

Evidence For

  • Musk alleges that Defendants' misstatements have diverted customers from Plaintiffs to Defendants, causing measurable losses (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

  • Defendants argue that the statements were not made primarily out of economic motivation and do not constitute commercial advertisements for goods or services (cl_25_0, cl_25_6).
Model Analysis: This is the weakest element. The defense has a strong argument that the statements were about OpenAI's mission, not direct attempts to sell services. The connection to commercial activity is tenuous.
Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

  • Plaintiff alleges specific misrepresentations regarding OpenAI's commitment to open source and safety (cl_1_0, cl_32_0).
  • Plaintiff alleges diversion of customers due to the misrepresentations (cl_32_0).

Key Weaknesses

  • Defendants argue that the statements were not commercial advertisements and relate to OpenAI's mission (cl_25_0, cl_25_6).
  • Plaintiff's allegations regarding Defendants' knowledge and intent are largely conclusory.
  • The connection between the alleged misrepresentations and the sale of property or services is weak.