Claim #14

Tortious Interference with Contract

30%

Confidence: 15% - 45%

Model Predictions

GPT-5.2

35%

Gemini 2 Flash

35%

Grok 4.1

35%

Claude Opus 4.5

15%

View by Model

Probability Timeline(Consensus)

52%42%33%

Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1

Oct 31, 2025 order 45%

Motion for Relief Denied (order)

Denial of a motion for relief from a pretrial order is a procedural matter and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the tortious interference claim.

Source: Docket #348

Oct 29, 2025 order▲ +3% 45%

Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)

If Ilya Sutskever's testimony is relevant to proving the elements of tortious interference (e.g., knowledge of the contract, intentional interference), compelling his compliance with the subpoena significantly increases the probability of success.

Source: Docket #339

Sep 22, 2025 order▲ +2% 42%

Discovery Dispute Orders (order)

Favorable rulings in discovery disputes can help the plaintiff obtain crucial evidence to support the elements of the tortious interference claim, such as evidence of a valid contract, the defendant's knowledge, and intentional interference. This slightly increases the probability of success.

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 doesn't directly affect the tortious interference claim (Count 14), assuming it wasn't directly related to those dismissed counts. The denial of Musk's MTD of counterclaims also doesn't directly impact this claim.

Source: Docket #228

Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -2% 40%

Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)

Granting a motion to strike certain allegations weakens the overall case, potentially removing supporting details for the tortious interference claim, thus slightly decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #222

Jul 25, 2025 order 42%

Case Schedule Modified (order)

Modifying the case schedule for discovery is a procedural step and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the tortious interference claim.

Source: Docket #215

Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +2% 42%

Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the motion to dismiss provides some support for the claim, arguing against the defendants' challenges and slightly increasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #181-182

Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -5% 40%

MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)

Another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint introduces renewed uncertainty and potential challenges to the claim's viability, decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #173

May 7, 2025 motion 45%

Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)

Musk's motion to dismiss counterclaims doesn't directly impact the probability of success for his own tortious interference claim.

Source: Docket #166

May 1, 2025 order▲ +3% 45%

MTD ORDER: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART (order)

Crucially, the MTD order being *denied in part* means this claim (or at least elements of it) survived. This significantly increases the probability of success compared to a full dismissal. The specific reasoning in the order is critical, but the survival itself is positive.

Source: Docket #163

Apr 9, 2025 order 42%

Case Management Order (order)

The case management order setting the discovery schedule is a procedural step and doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the tortious interference claim.

Source: Docket #146

Apr 4, 2025 hearing 42%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

The hearing itself doesn't directly change the probability, as the outcome is still unknown. It maintains the current level of uncertainty.

Source: Docket #144 Transcript

Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +2% 42%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the motion to dismiss provides some support for the claim, arguing against the defendants' challenges and slightly increasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #127-129

Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -5% 40%

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)

Denial of the preliminary injunction, while not directly ruling on the merits of the tortious interference claim, suggests a weakness in the plaintiff's overall case and ability to demonstrate irreparable harm, indirectly decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #121

Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -5% 45%

Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)

Another motion to dismiss, especially from additional defendants, introduces further uncertainty and potential challenges to the claim's viability, decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #102

Jan 13, 2025 order 50%

PI Hearing Scheduled (order)

Scheduling the PI hearing doesn't directly affect the probability of success for the tortious interference claim. It's a procedural step.

Source: Docket #93

Dec 27, 2024 brief 50%

PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)

The reply brief in support of the preliminary injunction, even with Musk's declaration, doesn't directly impact the tortious interference claim's probability at this stage. It's focused on the PI, not the claim's core elements.

Source: Docket #73

Dec 13, 2024 brief 50%

Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)

Opposition to the preliminary injunction doesn't directly impact the tortious interference claim's probability, as it focuses on immediate relief rather than the underlying merits of the claim.

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 current level of uncertainty.

Source: Hearing Transcript

Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +2% 50%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

A strong opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing against the challenges to contract formation and limitations, further bolsters the claim and slightly increases the probability of success.

Source: Docket #31

Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +8% 48%

Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)

The submission of the Founding Agreement, email evidence, and financial records provides concrete support for the existence of a contract and the defendants' knowledge and actions, significantly increasing the probability of success.

Source: Exhibits 1-25

Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -5% 40%

Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)

The filing of a motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty. The success of the motion depends on the strength of the arguments against contract formation, statute of limitations, and standing, all of which are crucial to the tortious interference claim.

Source: Docket #23

Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +3% 45%

Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)

Musk's sworn declaration, if it directly supports the existence of a contract and the defendants' knowledge of it, strengthens the claim and increases the probability of success.

Source: Musk Decl.

Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%

Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)

Refiling with additional allegations and exhibits suggests strengthened evidence or legal arguments related to the elements of tortious interference, increasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #1 (new)

Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%

Voluntary Dismissal (filing)

Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests potential weaknesses or strategic considerations, slightly decreasing the probability of success for all claims, including tortious interference.

Source: Docket #12

Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%

Complaint Filed (filing)

Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. Tortious interference claims are fact-dependent, so success hinges on proving a valid contract, defendant's knowledge, intentional interference, and damages. Initial probability reflects inherent uncertainty.

Source: Docket #1

Evidence from Filings

cl_1_0Aug 5, 2024

Original Complaint - Tortious Interference Claim

"The OpenAI For-Profit Entities knew Musk had a valid contract with Altman and OpenAI, Inc. and that the agreement required OpenAI, Inc.’s technology to be predominantly open source for the benefit of the public, not for private commercial gain."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Tortious Interference Arguments

"one cannot—as Musk tries to do here—bring a claim for tortious interference against an alleged agent of a party to the purported contract."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Failure to Plead Intentional Acts

"Musk fails to plead any “intentional acts” by the OpenAI For-Profit Entities “designed to induce a breach or disruption of [a] contractual relationship.”"

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Tortious Interference Claim

"Microsoft and the For-Profit Entities knew Musk had a valid contract with Altman and OpenAI, Inc. and that the agreement required OpenAI, Inc.’s technology to be predominantly open source for the benefit of the public, not for private commercial gain."

cl_64_14Dec 13, 2024

News Article

"The suit argues that OpenAI’s contract with Microsoft somehow interfered with Musk's agreement."

Legal Standard

Preponderance of the evidence

1. A valid contract existed between plaintiff and a third party
2. Defendant knew of the contract
3. Defendant intentionally and improperly interfered
4. The interference caused breach or disruption of the contract
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result

See: Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118 (1990)

Element Analysis (Consensus)

A valid contract existed between plaintiff and a third partyweak

Evidence For

Musk alleges the existence of a 'Founding Agreement' with Altman and OpenAI, Inc. (cl_32_0, cl_1_0).
Musk claims this agreement required OpenAI's technology to be predominantly open source (cl_32_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk has failed to plausibly plead mutual assent and bargained-for consideration, essential elements of any contract (cl_25_0).
Defendants contend that the alleged promises are too vague to constitute a contract (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: The existence of a valid contract is questionable. The defense raises strong arguments that the alleged agreement lacks essential elements like mutual assent and definite terms. The evidence supporting a formal, enforceable contract is weak.

Defendant knew of the contractmoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that the OpenAI For-Profit Entities and Microsoft knew of the contract between Musk, Altman, and OpenAI, Inc. (cl_32_0, cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that even if a contract existed, their knowledge of its specific terms is not adequately pleaded.
Defendants may argue that the terms of the contract are too vague to have been known.

Model Analysis: While Musk alleges knowledge, the strength of this element depends on the validity and clarity of the underlying contract. If the contract is vague, it's harder to prove the defendants knew of its specific terms.

Defendant intentionally and improperly interferedweak

Evidence For

Musk claims the OpenAI For-Profit Entities intentionally interfered by siphoning assets and closing off technology for private gain (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk fails to plead any 'intentional acts' designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship (cl_25_0).
Defendants may argue that the actions taken were for legitimate business purposes and not to intentionally interfere with any contract.

Model Analysis: This is a weak element for the plaintiff. The complaint needs to show specific actions by the defendants that were designed to disrupt the contract, not just general business decisions.

The interference caused breach or disruption of the contractweak

Evidence For

Musk alleges that the actions of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities caused a breach or disruption by preventing OpenAI, Inc.'s technology from being open source (cl_1_0).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk fails to explain how the alleged siphoning of assets caused a breach of the supposed contract (cl_25_0).
Defendants may argue that the contract did not explicitly require all technology to be open source, so there was no breach.

Model Analysis: This element is weak because it relies on the interpretation of the contract and whether the defendants' actions directly caused a breach. The causal link needs to be clearly established.

Plaintiff suffered damages as a resultmoderate

Evidence For

Musk claims he suffered 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 and not directly caused by the alleged interference.
Defendants may challenge the calculation and validity of the claimed damages.

Model Analysis: While Musk claims damages, the extent and causation of these damages are subject to proof. The defense can challenge the link between the alleged interference and the claimed losses.

Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

Musk alleges knowledge of the contract by the defendants.
Musk claims damages resulting from the alleged interference.

Key Weaknesses

The existence of a valid and enforceable contract is highly questionable.
Musk struggles to demonstrate intentional and improper interference by the defendants.
Causation between the interference and breach is not clearly established.