Claim #3

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

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)

50%28%5%

Oct 31Jun 20Mar 4Oct 15Mar 1

Oct 31, 2025 order 10%

Motion for Relief Denied (order)

Motion for relief is irrelevant since the claim has been dismissed with prejudice.

Source: Docket #348

Oct 29, 2025 order 10%

Order re Ilya Sutskever Subpoena (order)

The Sutskever subpoena is irrelevant since the claim has been dismissed with prejudice.

Source: Docket #339

Sep 22, 2025 order 10%

Discovery Dispute Orders (order)

Discovery disputes are irrelevant since the claim has been dismissed with prejudice.

Source: Docket #276, #278

▼Show 21 more events (Aug 12 - Aug 5)

Aug 12, 2025 order▼ -23% 10%

ORDER: Musk's MTD of Counterclaims DENIED; Counts III, XX, XXI DISMISSED (order)

This is a CRITICAL blow. Count III, the Aiding and Abetting Fraud claim, was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This means the claim is dead and cannot be refiled. The probability of success is now essentially zero.

Source: Docket #228

Jul 29, 2025 order▼ -1% 33%

Motion to Strike Granted in Part (order)

Granting a motion to strike, even in part, suggests that some of the plaintiff's allegations are weak or irrelevant, slightly decreasing the probability of success.

Source: Docket #222

Jul 25, 2025 order 34%

Case Schedule Modified (order)

Modifying the case schedule is a neutral event. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success.

Source: Docket #215

Jun 20, 2025 brief▲ +2% 34%

Opposition to SAC MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the MTD provides a chance to strengthen the arguments for the claim's survival. The effectiveness of the opposition will determine the actual impact.

Source: Docket #181-182

Jun 5, 2025 motion▼ -3% 32%

MTD to Second Amended Complaint Filed (motion)

Another MTD, this time to the Second Amended Complaint, further challenges the viability of the claim. The fact that the complaint has been amended multiple times suggests ongoing weaknesses.

Source: Docket #173

May 7, 2025 motion 35%

Musk Moves to Dismiss OpenAI Counterclaims (motion)

Musk's motion to dismiss counterclaims is unlikely to directly impact the aiding and abetting fraud claim. It's a separate legal battle.

Source: Docket #166

May 1, 2025 order▼ -3% 35%

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

This is a critical ruling. If the MTD was granted on elements related to the underlying fraud or the defendant's knowledge, it would significantly decrease the probability of success. Even if denied, the fact that some claims were dismissed suggests weaknesses in the overall case.

Source: Docket #163

Apr 9, 2025 order 38%

Case Management Order (order)

The case management order setting the discovery schedule is a neutral event. It doesn't directly impact the probability of success but sets the stage for further development of the case.

Source: Docket #146

Apr 4, 2025 hearing▼ -1% 38%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

Similar to the previous MTD hearing, this introduces uncertainty pending the judge's ruling. The impact depends on the strength of the arguments presented.

Source: Docket #144 Transcript

Mar 24, 2025 brief▲ +2% 39%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

Opposition to the MTD provides a chance to strengthen the arguments for the claim's survival. The effectiveness of the opposition will determine the actual impact.

Source: Docket #127-129

Mar 4, 2025 order▼ -3% 37%

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED (order)

Denial of the preliminary injunction is a setback for the plaintiff's overall case. While not directly related to the merits of the aiding and abetting claim, it signals a lack of immediate harm and potentially weakens the overall narrative.

Source: Docket #121

Jan 31, 2025 motion▼ -4% 40%

Defendants' MTD to FAC Filed (motion)

Another MTD, this time to the FAC, further challenges the viability of the claim. The specific arguments raised in this MTD need to be considered, but generally, it decreases the probability of success.

Source: Docket #102

Jan 13, 2025 order 44%

PI Hearing Scheduled (order)

Scheduling the PI hearing doesn't directly impact the probability of success for the aiding and abetting fraud claim.

Source: Docket #93

Dec 27, 2024 brief 44%

PI Reply Brief Filed (brief)

Similar to the opposition, the reply brief for the preliminary injunction has minimal direct impact on the aiding and abetting fraud claim.

Source: Docket #73

Dec 13, 2024 brief 44%

Opposition to PI Motion Filed (brief)

Opposition to the preliminary injunction doesn't directly affect the aiding and abetting fraud claim, as it focuses on immediate relief rather than the merits of the underlying claims.

Source: Docket #64-65

Nov 20, 2024 hearing▼ -1% 44%

MTD Hearing Held (hearing)

The hearing itself doesn't directly change the probability, but introduces uncertainty pending the judge's ruling. The impact depends on how well the arguments for and against dismissal were received.

Source: Hearing Transcript

Oct 15, 2024 brief▲ +2% 45%

Opposition to MTD Filed (brief)

A strong opposition to the MTD can increase the chances of the claim surviving. Arguing for tolling of limitations is important for the overall case, and indirectly helps the aiding and abetting claim.

Source: Docket #31

Oct 1, 2024 exhibit▲ +3% 43%

Key Exhibits Submitted (exhibit)

The submission of founding agreements, emails, and financial records could provide crucial evidence of the underlying fraud and the defendant's awareness. The impact depends on the specific content of these exhibits.

Source: Exhibits 1-25

Sep 15, 2024 motion▼ -5% 40%

Motion to Dismiss Filed (motion)

The filing of a motion to dismiss introduces uncertainty and challenges the viability of the claim. The specific grounds (contract formation, statute of limitations, standing) could indirectly impact the fraud claim if they undermine the overall case narrative.

Source: Docket #23

Aug 20, 2024 declaration▲ +3% 45%

Musk Declaration Filed (declaration)

Musk's declaration provides direct evidence of his understanding and intent, which could be relevant to establishing the underlying fraud. However, its impact on proving 'aiding and abetting' is less direct, hence a smaller increase.

Source: Musk Decl.

Aug 5, 2024 filing▲ +7% 42%

Complaint Refiled (FAC) (filing)

Refiling with additional allegations and exhibits suggests a stronger case, potentially bolstering the elements of the underlying fraud and the defendant's knowledge. The delta reflects the renewed effort and potential for stronger evidence.

Source: Docket #1 (new)

Mar 8, 2024 filing▼ -5% 35%

Voluntary Dismissal (filing)

Voluntary dismissal, even without prejudice, suggests some weakness in the initial case or strategy, lowering the probability of success for all claims, including aiding and abetting fraud.

Source: Docket #12

Mar 1, 2024 filing 40%

Complaint Filed (filing)

Initial filing establishes a baseline probability. Aiding and abetting fraud requires proving the underlying fraud and the defendant's knowledge and assistance, which is a complex burden.

Source: Docket #1

Evidence from Filings

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Aiding and Abetting Fraud Allegations

"Microsoft had actual knowledge that Altman and Brockman were engaging in such fraud, and on information and belief, Microsoft’s due diligence process before investing $13.75 billion would have required, at a minimum, review of OpenAI, Inc.’s Certificate of Incorporation and regulatory filing with the Attorney General of California, and on further information and belief, Microsoft knew of Musk’s donations and the conditions on which they were made."

cl_25_0Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Aiding and Abetting Fraud Argument

"Musk’s tack-on claim of aiding and abetting fraud, asserted against the OpenAI For-Profit Entities, should likewise be dismissed for want of pleading an underlying fraud. Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1148 (2005) (pleading aiding and abetting under California law requires a “primary violation” of which the defendant has “actual knowledge”)."

cl_32_0Nov 14, 2024

First Amended Complaint - Substantial Assistance Allegations

"The For-Profit Entities and Microsoft provided substantial assistance or encouragement to Altman and Brockman, aiding and abetting their fraud on Musk by, without limitation, providing the corporate entities necessary to loot OpenAI, Inc. of its intellectual property and employees, drafting and executing exclusive licensing and other contracts contrary to the purposes of OpenAI, Inc., and forcing the pursuit of profits over safety and transparency."

cl_25_6Oct 8, 2024

Motion to Dismiss - Lack of Specificity

"First, he fails to allege the OpenAI For-Profit Entities’ “substantial assistance” in the purported underlying fraud with “heightened specificity.” McGraw Co. v. Aegis Gen. Ins. Agency, Inc., 2016 WL 3745063, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)."

cl_393_5

Wazzan Deposition - Musk's Beliefs

"Are you aware that Mr. Musk testified that by September 2017, he had already concluded that Mr. Altman and Mr. Brockman were being deceptive, and that their real goal was to create a closed-source maximum-profit entity for their own benefit?"

Legal Standard

Preponderance of the evidence

1. A primary fraud was committed by someone
2. Defendant knew of the fraud
3. Defendant provided substantial assistance to the fraud
4. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result

See: Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn., 127 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2005)

Element Analysis (Consensus)

A primary fraud was committed by someonemoderate

Evidence For

Paragraphs 296-301 of the First Amended Complaint (cl_32_0) allege that Altman and Brockman solicited contributions from Musk through repeated promises and reassurances, which they later breached, misleading Musk and causing him harm. This suggests a potential primary fraud.
Musk alleges that Altman and Brockman participated in a scheme to defraud him of his contributions (cl_32_0, paragraph 321).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk has not adequately pleaded an underlying fraud (cl_25_0).
Defendants argue that Musk fails to identify any promise that was made to him or 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) (cl_25_6).

Model Analysis: The existence of a primary fraud is contested. While Musk alleges misrepresentations and breaches of promises, the strength of this element depends on whether these allegations meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud.

Defendant knew of the fraudweak

Evidence For

Musk alleges that Microsoft had actual knowledge that Altman and Brockman were engaging in fraud, based on their due diligence process before investing (cl_32_0, paragraph 323).
Musk alleges the For-Profit Entities had actual knowledge that Altman and Brockman were engaging in such fraud because the For-Profit Entities were formed to help facilitate that very purpose (cl_32_0, paragraph 322).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that the knowledge allegations are based on 'information and belief' and lack sufficient factual support.
Defendants may argue that Musk has not adequately alleged that the Entities 'actually knew [Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI, Inc. were] committing the specific breach for which [Musk] seeks to hold [them] liable' (cl_25_0).

Model Analysis: Knowledge is difficult to prove. Musk's allegations rely heavily on 'information and belief,' which may not be sufficient to establish actual knowledge. The strength of this element is weak.

Defendant provided substantial assistance to the fraudmoderate

Evidence For

Musk alleges that Microsoft and the For-Profit Entities provided substantial assistance by providing corporate entities to loot OpenAI, drafting exclusive contracts, and forcing the pursuit of profits over safety and transparency (cl_32_0, paragraph 325).

Evidence Against

Defendants argue that Musk has not adequately alleged 'substantial assistance' with 'heightened specificity' (cl_25_0).
Defendants may argue that the actions taken were within the normal course of business and do not constitute substantial assistance to a fraud.

Model Analysis: The 'substantial assistance' element is moderately strong. Musk provides specific examples of how the defendants allegedly aided the fraud, but the defendants will likely argue that these actions were not substantial or were part of legitimate business activities.

Plaintiff suffered damages as a resultstrong

Evidence For

Musk alleges that he has been directly and proximately injured by the defendants' conduct, including financial contributions, loss of time and resources, and damage to his reputation (cl_32_0, paragraph 326).
Musk seeks compensatory damages, an accounting, and injunctive relief (cl_32_0, paragraph 291).

Evidence Against

Defendants may argue that Musk's damages are speculative or not directly caused by their actions.
Defendants may argue that Musk's damages are not quantifiable.

Model Analysis: The damages element is relatively strong. Musk clearly alleges financial losses and reputational harm, which are typical damages in fraud cases. However, the exact amount of damages may be subject to dispute.

Overall Assessment

Key Strengths

Musk alleges specific actions by the defendants that constitute substantial assistance to the alleged fraud.
Musk clearly alleges damages resulting from the defendants' conduct.

Key Weaknesses

The knowledge element is weak, relying heavily on 'information and belief'.
The existence of a primary fraud is contested and depends on meeting the heightened pleading standard.